Sadly Mozilla is not immune to following the dumb fads that run through Silicon Valley, but Firefox is still clearly the best browser option.

I’m not sure I understand how deepfake porn is supposed to be ruining lives here. From the article it seems like the issue is not any concern that it would be mistaken for real, but instead just people having a very horrified reaction to seeing that sort of depiction of themselves? Mostly it seems like the deepfake aspect is sort of a trivial distraction to the real issue on display there of gangs of men targeting random women for online harassment. If there was no such thing as deepfakes other sexually explicit or disturbing images could sub in easily enough.

Maybe the new deepfake ban will be useful as a way of going after these harassment gangs that previously didn’t face legal consequences? But it’s sort of an inexact tool for that job, given that there are presumably lots of deepfake images out there not used for harassment, and that’s it’s easy enough for harassers to switch away from deepfakes if using them becomes a major legal vulnerability.

I think you got it and effectively answered it, thanks.

How do you work the office only having space for 20% of employees? Makes a lot of sense but would be annoying to hot desk. My office only has us in two days a week but has not cut down on the number of desks at all, giving up the potential savings.

And that’s why Jamie Foxx is cooler than Will Smith

No copyright is about the “right” to “copy” the work in question, not the attribution. Works that are in the public domain still list the author.

Shortening the time is good, and adjusting it while it still does apply to allow for more legal free sharing of the work.

Eliminating copyright doesn’t mean they’d be allowed to lie about who wrote what they were publishing. Anything an artist creates blowing up and gaining wide appreciation is very good for that artist’s future prospects. An artist who is spreading their work for free anyway is much better off in the scenario where there’s no copyright and everyone understands the need to tip / patronize their favorite artists.

If you are already sharing something for free in order to gain publicity, what is the downside of others repackaging them and spreading them further? That is exactly the kind of publicity you’re trying to gain.

“your proposal would harm young artists who need to share their works in order to gain publicity for something they intend to sell and sustain themselves on.”

The default is already for young artists to share a lot of their work hoping to get noticed. Getting rid of copyright would be reorienting the whole system to center that experience more rather than the established artists and art producing corporations who now are in a strong enough position to charge. “Making it” would just mean that your patreon was doing gangbusters rather than selling a lot of copies of whatever your art is.

Yeah Project Gutenberg really demonstrates how this is all pretty much already built, just illegal to include recent works in. Though of course that’s just books where the post copyright free library could also include all other art and culture such as tv, radio, movies, images, games, etc

I’m more open to burning the whole edifice of copyright law down than you are, but the key reform that I want that maybe we could agree on is that it should be legal to distribute coprighted works for free. No need to to let someone else try to make a profit by undercutting your sales, but if someone is willing to make and distribute copies (or ecopies) of a work to no profit for themselves they should be allowed to. What that would mean in practice if it was legal would be an online content library containing all human art and culture, freely available for download to all comers. It might hurt the income of some creators, but you’d still have a lot of other ways to make money that don’t entail depriving people of that library.

Haha probably better to keep the tube closer to the surface of the Earth but otherwise yes.

If only we had a series of pneumatic tubes connecting all our homes, you could order something online and have it pop up right next to you minutes later.

Ordinary Mexicans

What do all the people downvoting it based on the title assume it means?

Traditionally both parties had to agree to get divorced if there had not been some “grounds” for the divorce that could be proved in court. That’s why the classic business for old timey private detectives was proving that their client’s spouse was committing adultery in order to legally justify a divorce.

Yeah I actually came across this statistic in this article about those guys wanting to make divorce much harder, which linked to the study: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2024/05/no-fault-divorce-gop-republicans-mainstream-podcast-dudes/

Any time a company is pushing a change this hard I know it’s not something I want.

So trashy