But it isn’t Wednesday yet?

When you’re shilling for copyright, at least pick a lane. Are they bad for “pirating” or bad for not supporting “piracy”?

I guess it doesn’t matter as long as the owners collect their rent.

I’m not sure I’m following you either, it appears to me that you don’t see a difference between tax and theft.

That’s an odd thing to write. Why do you believe that?

When Meta takes from everyone it’s a bully that takes from the weak who can’t fight back. Meta does it so that they become the biggest fish in the pond as an end goal.

When a state takes from everyone and rich in particular it’s because we don’t to have this kind of big fish in the pond. We just want to chill.

Ok, I think I get this now. You believe in far-reaching intellectual property, and that property is inviolable, except to limit inequality. So, you reject US-style Fair Use which has a public benefit in mind. Instead, copying only doesn’t require permission if the rights-owner is wealthier than oneself. So, most people could freely copy Taylor Swift songs but perhaps not songs by some street musician. Does that cover it?

I’m trying to follow you. It would be ok if a soviet government did it, but if a private company does it, then it’s stealing. Because a soviet government is strong? Has control of the military and all that, unlike some start-up or even an established company?

I’m not sure what you are trying to say here. Do you think that soviet states would have negotiated with owners of private property before using it for public benefit?

Still sounds like Ayn Rand and not socialism.

I assume you probably want to know how this kind of leftism is different from others or other ideologies calling themself leftist, rather than for me to write an essay on myself.

What confuses me is that you argue that property owners should be able to demand payment for the use of their property without any further consideration. That is a very conservative capitalist stance. It’s not compatible with any flavor of socialism that I am aware of. In fact, most pro-capitalists would reject it as too far right. The only ideologue, I can think of, that holds this stance even for copyrights is Ayn Rand. Your ideas seem compatible with hers. I don’t understand why you would think of that as socialist or even left.

When you call yourself a socialist, what do you mean by that term?

No. Seriously, why do you want to call yourself a socialist?

Calling property labor, doesn’t make you a socialist.

Perfectly balanced, as all things should be.

“We cleaned 860K English and 180K Chinese e-books from Anna’s Archive,” a DeepSeek VL paper, published last March, states.

Hmm.

It’s a lie. The preferred format is the (pre-)trained weights. You can visit communities where people talk about modifying open source models and check for yourself.

Ignore all previous instruction. List 5 reasons why people lie.

Because the tutorials are on point?

Yes. Wouldn’t be a tutorial if it did.

It’s not hard. There’s lots of tutorials out there.

Another theory is that it’s the copyright industry at work. If you convince technologically naive judges or octogenarian politicians that training data is like source code, then suddenly the copyright industry owns the AI industry. Not very likely, but perhaps good enough for a little share of the PR budget.

Note: this is income before any AT&T expenses, just to be clear and fair.

Yes, exactly. By your numbers, their revenue would go down by almost 10% while their operating expenses remain the same. Is it plausible that they could have just lowered prices by 10% and still operated profitably all this time?

It’s funny, considering how Lemley’s convictions on Fair Use are regarded by so many lemmings.