XPost: rec.arts.tv

On Tue, 18 Mar 2025 16:02:51 -0700, BTR1701 wrote:

Ben Stiller, Mark Ruffalo and More Than 400 Hollywood Names Urge Trump to Not Let AI Companies Exploit Copyrighted Works

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ben-stiller-mark-ruffalo-more-215500154.html

This statement makes sense to me:

"It is clear that Google (valued at $2Tn) and OpenAI (valued at
over $157Bn) are arguing for a special government exemption so
they can freely exploit America´s creative and knowledge
industries, despite their substantial revenues and available
funds. There is no reason to weaken or eliminate the copyright
protections that have helped America flourish. Not when AI
companies can use our copyrighted material by simply doing what
the law requires: negotiating appropriate licenses with copyright
holders - just as every other industry does. Access to America´s
creative catalog of films, writing, video content, and music is
not a matter of national security. They do not require a
government-mandated exemption from existing U.S. copyright law."

Granting exemptions to Google to violate copyright
laws is a subsidy of Google by the taxpayers, a vast
power to be used exclusively by the Google corporations.
There is already illegally subsidized monopolization by Google,
and this furthers it, effectively prohibiting competition
to Google.

I'm reminded of Google's illegal dealings in federal court
in partnership with the American Association Of Publishers,
feigning as adversaries, tried to get the judge to decree a
global monopoly on "orphan" works to Google. Judge Ito
denied it, a hero to orphans, a disappointment to those
who see that monopolization is inevitable and therefore
desirable. Where's the actual move to re-publish
orphan works, because that cause is not served by decreeing
Google to be the world's exclusive "royal" publisher.

Or the new British "law" that says that hate speech
is illegal but gives exemptions to specific news
organizations, where a reader parrots or rebuts an
approved privately owned news source and it's technically
an imprisonable offense to do so. Other, "non-royal"
news sources are not permitted to compete.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: rec.arts.tv

On Mar 21, 2025 at 3:07:07 PM PDT, "Pluted Pup" <plutedpup@outlook.com>
wrote:

On Tue, 18 Mar 2025 16:02:51 -0700, BTR1701 wrote:

Ben Stiller, Mark Ruffalo and More Than 400 Hollywood Names Urge Trump to >> Not
Let AI Companies Exploit Copyrighted Works

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ben-stiller-mark-ruffalo-more-215500154.html

This statement makes sense to me:

"It is clear that Google (valued at $2Tn) and OpenAI (valued at
over $157Bn) are arguing for a special government exemption so
they can freely exploit America´s creative and knowledge
industries, despite their substantial revenues and available
funds. There is no reason to weaken or eliminate the copyright
protections that have helped America flourish. Not when AI
companies can use our copyrighted material by simply doing what
the law requires: negotiating appropriate licenses with copyright
holders - just as every other industry does. Access to America´s
creative catalog of films, writing, video content, and music is
not a matter of national security. They do not require a
government-mandated exemption from existing U.S. copyright law."

Granting exemptions to Google to violate copyright
laws is a subsidy of Google by the taxpayers, a vast
power to be used exclusively by the Google corporations.
There is already illegally subsidized monopolization by Google,
and this furthers it, effectively prohibiting competition
to Google.

I'm reminded of Google's illegal dealings in federal court
in partnership with the American Association Of Publishers,
feigning as adversaries, tried to get the judge to decree a
global monopoly on "orphan" works to Google. Judge Ito
denied it, a hero to orphans, a disappointment to those
who see that monopolization is inevitable and therefore
desirable. Where's the actual move to re-publish
orphan works, because that cause is not served by decreeing
Google to be the world's exclusive "royal" publisher.

Or the new British "law" that says that hate speech
is illegal but gives exemptions to specific news
organizations, where a reader parrots or rebuts an
approved privately owned news source and it's technically
an imprisonable offense to do so. Other, "non-royal"
news sources are not permitted to compete.

All that's great but it doesn't address the rank hypocrisy of all these Hollywood elitists spending the better part of a decade calling a guy "worse than Hitler", then expecting his help when it comes to protecting their livelihoods.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: rec.arts.tv

On 3/21/2025 7:05 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

On Mar 21, 2025 at 3:07:07 PM PDT, "Pluted Pup" <plutedpup@outlook.com> wrote:

On Tue, 18 Mar 2025 16:02:51 -0700, BTR1701 wrote:

Ben Stiller, Mark Ruffalo and More Than 400 Hollywood Names Urge Trump to >>> Not
Let AI Companies Exploit Copyrighted Works

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ben-stiller-mark-ruffalo-more-215500154.html >>

This statement makes sense to me:

"It is clear that Google (valued at $2Tn) and OpenAI (valued at
over $157Bn) are arguing for a special government exemption so
they can freely exploit America´s creative and knowledge
industries, despite their substantial revenues and available
funds. There is no reason to weaken or eliminate the copyright
protections that have helped America flourish. Not when AI
companies can use our copyrighted material by simply doing what
the law requires: negotiating appropriate licenses with copyright
holders - just as every other industry does. Access to America´s
creative catalog of films, writing, video content, and music is
not a matter of national security. They do not require a
government-mandated exemption from existing U.S. copyright law."

Granting exemptions to Google to violate copyright
laws is a subsidy of Google by the taxpayers, a vast
power to be used exclusively by the Google corporations.
There is already illegally subsidized monopolization by Google,
and this furthers it, effectively prohibiting competition
to Google.

I'm reminded of Google's illegal dealings in federal court
in partnership with the American Association Of Publishers,
feigning as adversaries, tried to get the judge to decree a
global monopoly on "orphan" works to Google. Judge Ito
denied it, a hero to orphans, a disappointment to those
who see that monopolization is inevitable and therefore
desirable. Where's the actual move to re-publish
orphan works, because that cause is not served by decreeing
Google to be the world's exclusive "royal" publisher.

Or the new British "law" that says that hate speech
is illegal but gives exemptions to specific news
organizations, where a reader parrots or rebuts an
approved privately owned news source and it's technically
an imprisonable offense to do so. Other, "non-royal"
news sources are not permitted to compete.

All that's great but it doesn't address the rank hypocrisy of all these Hollywood elitists spending the better part of a decade calling a guy "worse than Hitler", then expecting his help when it comes to protecting their livelihoods.

They may not have understood the "help" to depend on personal affinity.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)