I absolutely agree with the second half, guided by Ian Kerr’s paper “Death of the AI Author”; quoting from the abstract:

Claims of AI authorship depend on a romanticized conception of both authorship and AI, and simply do not make sense in terms of the realities of the world in which the problem exists. Those realities should push us past bare doctrinal or utilitarian considerations about what an author must do. Instead, they demand an ontological consideration of what an author must be.

I think the part courts will struggle with is if this ‘thing’ is not an author of the works then it can’t infringe either?

The thing is these models aren’t aiming to re-create the work of any single authors, but merely to put words in the right order. Imo, If we allow authors to copyright the order of their words instead of their whole original creations then we are actually reducing the threshold for copyright protection and (again imo) increasing the number of acts that would be determined to be copyright protected

It’s not so much a matter of whether the service would work or not but whether the corporate directors would be exposed to criminal liability for continuing to provide such services without OFCOM being able to “understand” the encrypted messages: see 99(4) of the Bill

https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3137

And then there’s Maud

Oh is it not banned anymore? Then my bad for using that as an example, but publishers do censor the works of their authors to try and avoid liability

One of life’s truisms: everyone can lose except the lawyers involved

Not sure that’s the best analogy since publishers do have an onus not to publish certain materials (example How would that work out for someone publishing something like the anarchists cookbook?)

Conversely, its not considered feasible for content providers (who don’t generate or police the content BEFORE it’s public) to police the work of content generators (the users). That’s why s.230 of the CDA (imo) does more than the first amendment

Isn’t this doomed to fail in light of the SC’s guidance in Gonzalez v. Google and Twitter v Taamneh ??

Edit: "The platforms’ failure to remove such content, Justice Thomas wrote, was not enough to establish liability for aiding and abetting, which he said required plausible allegations that they ‘gave such knowing and substantial assistance to ISIS that they culpably participated in the Reina attack.’” (copied from a NYT article)

Amazon argues other large retailers weren’t given the same designation, but is that because Amazon is largest or because the other retailers are already doing a good enough job (in which case no harm in the EU agreeing to include more retailers in the list) or because EU arbitrarily wants Amazon in the list without proof it would make a difference (in which case maybe take another look at the criteria used to make the list).

Imo, it’s fair to ask why Alex Jones’ webstore shouldn’t also have to police disinformation they put out

Remember to leave a review on the official reddit app regarding it’s porno abilities - if there’s anything google/iOS app stores love more than anything it’s an abundance of apps dedicated to viewing porn

I may be misinformed - but I was led to believe this is a book shop and therefore unlikely to lose many customers