It’s never effective. At best, you could make the argument that a certain person lacks the wherewithal to have manipulated a signature, or gotten someone else to do it. One has to hope that the marketing BS does not convince courts to assign undue weight to forged evidence.

Sort of. A camera with internet connectivity could automatically “notarize” photos. The signing authority would vouch that the photo (or other file) hasn’t been altered since the moment of signing. It wouldn’t be evidence that the photo was not manipulated before that moment.

That could make, EG, photos of a traffic accident good evidence in court. If there wasn’t time to for manipulation, then the photos must be real. It wouldn’t work for photos that could have been taken at any time.

You could upload a hash to the blockchain of a cryptocurrency for the same purpose. The integrity of the cryptocurrency would then vouch that the photo was unaltered since the upload. But that’s not cost-effective. You could even upload the hash to Reddit, since it’s not believable that they would manipulate timestamps to help some random guy somewhere in the world commit fraud.

This may be “unpopular opinion” stuff, but I frequently see highly upvoted populist pitches on Lemmy that are just the same; a supposed way of sticking it to the man that will quite obviously be borne by the little guy.

Don’t really see the problem. If you pick up the content while web crawling, you will end up with a lot of duplicates, but that’s normal. If you wanted to scrape the Fediverse in particular, you’d know the structure of the data.

I wonder why Bluesky bothers. The reaction was predictable.

1. This is exactly the intended purpose of fair use. Look up the copyright clause.

2. Small creators are the biggest beneficiaries of this. They would have to pay the extortionate licensing fees.

You can read the IA’s take on these issues here: https://blog.archive.org/2023/11/02/internet-archive-submits-comments-on-copyright-and-artificial-intelligence/

Their take is quite different from the sentiment that seems to prevail in this community.

GDPR is not copyright, despite all similarities. I assume that you accept that copyright does not work like that, since you are changing the subject.

Note that the GDPR does not claim to be applicable in third countries; ie outside the territory where EU law is enforced. It only seeks to regulate dealings of outside parties with people in the EU. Even that can’t be practically enforced, usually. Once data leaves the EU, there isn’t much EU governments can do about it, which is why the GDPR has serious rules about data transfers to third countries. (That’s a problem for the fediverse.)

They follow French law in France and US law in the US. How else could it work?

They can’t choose to apply US labor law in France. Do you think they can be made to follow French labor law in Silicon Valley?

That’s where it gets interesting. The EU can, of course, regulate imports. If there’s a movie that is public domain in the US but not in France, then France/the EU could regulate the importation and sale of copies. I don’t know how that is actually regulated. What it can’t do is award damages for copies being made and used in the US.

There is a brief mention of the EU’s AI Act. That is certainly the basis for the lawsuit, rather than copyright law.

That means, if this case proceeds, it will be basically decided by the CJEU and create precedents for the entire EU.

They follow French law in France and US law in the US. How else could it work?

They can’t choose to apply US labor law in France. Do you think they can be made to follow French labor law in Silicon Valley?

Did they deploy their AI in Europe?

That’s a good question. I just checked with Meta’s website. It says Meta AI is “not available” in my country, which is in the EU.

They have to comply with these laws in Europe. They do not comply with them outside of Europe.

Is the argument that something that a multinational corporation does in one country, happens in all countries where the corporation is present? There’s no way that would stand up in court.

Yes, that’s where the trouble starts. I think later treaties reinforce the principle. I’d really like to know how the rights owners argue to get around that.

I guess my post was too long. Yes, France could enforce a judgment against Meta by leaning on the French division of Meta. The question is, on what legal basis this would happen.

They are suing because of something that happened in the US, right? What argument is there to apply French law?

That’s not merely politically contentious. It is explicitly against internation law; treaties that France has signed.

Oh wow. That’s not a small misunderstanding.

Law is basically territorial. French police can arrest people in France. If, say, Russian police tries to arrest someone in France, then it is, at best, a criminal kidnapping and, at worst, an act of war. Extradition hearings are a thing because a country decides on its own terms, by its own laws, whether to hand over people to another jurisdiction.

Sovereignty is a big deal for countries. If you think about it in terms of kidnapped or armed, uniformed foreigners running around, then you understand why.

If France were to send out fines to people in the UK for driving on the wrong side of the road, then the UK would refuse to collect them. France could collect fines for something people have done in the UK only if these people pass through France. Obviously, that would cause serious international tension.

In the same way, if France awards special privileges to its citizens that allow them to collect money from people around the world, other countries would not entertain such demands. What France can do, is make laws that force French residents to pay money to people around the world. That’s how copyright law works.

There are international treaties on intellectual property. Signatory countries generally agree to have certain minimal standards in their laws. They also agree to treat all nationals equal. So, France couldn’t make special privileges for its citizens. They also agree that their copyright laws only apply in their territories.

So, I don’t see quite what a French court could be doing here, that would be compatible with international law.

What? Did you reply to the wrong post?

I wonder what their argument is. French copyright law governs France. People in the US have no obligation to follow it. Might as well fine people in the UK for driving on the wrong side of the road.