I have several TB of storage, and occasionally I will just delete stuff that I haven’t revisited in a while. I really should convert to some sort of offline storage library instead of deleting, but I haven’t yet.

I actually don’t do that many movies, but I do a lot of TV. I do 1080p x265 because that’s really all the monitor I have for VLC. I have downloaded 4K in the past, and there is a 4K TV in the living room, but I don’t usually notice the quality difference and the file sizes are a lot bigger. I have a poor Internet connection (best available in my area), so smaller sizes help me keep my ratios up.

But, that’s just my preference. I have a friend that insists on 4K, but they notice quality issues and are distracted by them more easily.

Often quality blacks also depends on good encoder settings, so if you find an encoder / encoding team that does well, it might be worth seeking out their version(s), even if the file sizes are larger or their releases take longer.

Don’t trust anyone over 25, including me (46).

Critique is one of the alleys of fair use, yes.

It is possible that merely training an LLM on material might be fair use. It’s basically the same thing are scraping and then doing statistics. That said, I believe the burden of proof is that a use falls into the fair use exemptions; AI training might not satisfy the criteria the courts have previously established. The U.S. copyright office has published guidelines that indicate training does implicate the right of reproduction, so it if it’s NOT fair use and unlicensed, it is infringement / violation.

But, distributing the output can still be a copyright violation not covered by fair use exemptions, even if training is covered by fair use. The U.S. copyright office has indicated that distributing an output could implicate various rights based on the training data that it is similar to.

In any case, LLMs (or any non-human thing) can’t be given a copyright, and the U.S. copyright office says that prompts are NOT sufficient creative effort to establish a copyright on what a generative AI model outputs in response to a prompt. So, it could be that the only rights holders that get to affect the output are the rights holders of the training data.

If this is the same case that came through yesterday, the Trump DOJ brief is basically just an amicus brief. There’s some sort of jurisdictional / standing issue there that I don’t understand; they aren’t the ones arguing in court.

Maybe a world without copyrights would just be better. But, if Disney gets protections, I want protections on my AGPL code and I want the artists enjoy to get protections as well, even if they haven’t joined a licensing cabal. If that means AI is doomed, fuck it.

Bwahaha. Taxpayers will definitely bail out this industry, especially if the crash happens during this administration. That will be true whether or not be force some level of public ownership to reap any rewards that might accrue.

loss of decorum is going to shut down a discussion

Can someone explain why this isn’t “civility politics” and simply used as a tool to further marginalize persons that already don’t have enough representation?

When a person advocates for making it harder for other persons to participate in public life, it should be acceptable to have an emotional response, including but not limited to ad hominem attacks, while also building the reasonable/logical/rational/non-fallacious arguments against them.