PICT is the Apple equivalent of WMF where it just records the actions taken to draw the image and throws them into a file stream. WMF does the same but with Windows GDI functions (and, for a long time, WMF files were just executables that could call any internal Windows DLL function).
The only thing I know that even opens PICT is Irfanview but it won't be able to export as a vector, but Scribus claims some limited support.
It's not.
If a human regurgitates vast portions of a copyright work - whether directly from memory or otherwise - and then sells it as part of a commercial service to other people, they will get in just as much trouble for being outside the bounds of fair-use.
This isn't about "what an AI can do" vs "what a human can do", it's literally about "is the company's end usage covered under fair use", and wholesale regurgitation of source data (books) can be coaxed out of all LLMs *and* some of these companies are distributing that training data to others, including the full texts of books.
Whether you photocopy a book, write it out again, memorise it or put on a play you wrote about it with phrases from it quoted word-for-word... there's a point at which it's NO LONGER FAIR USE.
And that point has just been ruled to be crossed by such uses.
The title means that infringing copyright involving "vast troves" doesn't make it stop being an infringement of copyright. The logic is right in your second quote: AI companies are engaging in large-scale copyright infringement, not small-scale infringement. It's the core of their business model, not a side line.
If you remove the "troves" bit from the quote, then the argument becomes:
But making commercial use of copyrighted works to produce expressive content that competes with them in existing markets, especially where this is accomplished through illegal access, goes beyond established fair use boundaries.
This is still trivially true under copyright law. If you want to point to supposed decades of established case law, then do so. Argument by unbacked assertion is a fallacy. Inspiration is separate from "fair use" -- and there are decades of litigation over where the boundaries are for characters or plots "inspired by" copyrighted material.
Copyright laws and licenses govern more than just what somebody pays for the copyrighted work. Your argument is based on ignoring violations of licenses, all the secondary copying that goes on during training, and the propensity of AI models to regurgitate training material.
That's a name, nit a pronoun. You are an absolute moron.
No, you're not. The assertion you quoted to is entirely false; it is a straw man to stand in for the Copyright Office's observation that AI companies are engaging in large-scale copyright infringement of a very traditional character.
That's not an argument, that's just emoting.
How is that different in substance from "maybe copyright infringement should be allowed because I don't want to pay for a newspaper subscription. that would benefit mankind, i.e. me."?
What do you think the Pope's new pronoun is?
Why didn't you quote the next sentence?
Except for the old-style language of that poem, its use of singular they to refer to an unnamed person seems very modern.
Emphasis added where OED agreed with the AC.
I infer the argument is that Slashdot editors are too fucking stupid to know that Mark is a man's name. It tracks.
I interviewed a candidate last week. The interview before me, Coworker A, was running late and for some reason spent almost ten minutes of my slot regaling the candidate with how A used an LLM to refactor and comment Python, compete with sound effects ("I told it that it gave me this code, and that I wanted more comments, and 'boop' comments popped out.") My coworkers think highly of A, but that damaged his reputation with me for wasting two others' time with a largely off-topic brag.
Two days later, I saw an email from the person who wrote the original Python, remarking that the only change the LLM made to the actual Python code was to check for an overflow condition that was already handled slightly earlier in the code -- making A's story even less impressive.
plenty of lithium deposits outside the environment
Obligatory:
[Interviewer:] So what do you do to protect the environment in cases like this?
[Senator Collins:] Well, the ship was towed outside the environment.
[Interviewer:] Into another environment....
[Senator Collins:] No, no, no. it's been towed beyond the environment, it's not in the environment
[Interviewer:] Yeah, but from one environment to another environment.
[Senator Collins:] No, it's beyond the environment, it's not in an environment. It has been towed beyond the environment.
How long did Windows and MacOS those architectures?
If you're going to make comparisons, they should hold up to scrutiny.
If the world ever ends, it ain't gonna be old versions of Windows that you'll be booting up.
The steady state of disks is full. -- Ken Thompson
