FriendOfDeSoto

On that we are agreed. The headline speaks of a landmark ruling, which I think is too much acclaim for a decision a higher court could just dismiss.

I think my sniping at Bavaria speaks for itself.

They don't need sway as much as money and lawyers, which I imagine they have. And this verdict is probably on the worst outcome end of the scale for them. I cannot imagine they will accept a ruling that calls them daft like this one does. They will try to water down liability for their model's fantasy summaries. Whether they succeed is a different question. But they will try, so they will appeal, so this verdict isn't worth the paper it's printed on. Yet.

All I said is that this verdict isn't effective yet. These headlines and sadly this article buries this fact in a sentence in the last paragraph. Blink and you miss it stuff. Lemmies tend to overlook this and declare victory over Google when this was merely the first battle of the war.

This isn't final. Google has time to appeal. Let's hold off on the label "landmark" until it reaches legal effectiveness. Which it probably won't, however good a verdict by a German regional court, much less one based in Bavaria, this is in my opinion.

Google lawyers arguing in court that Google's so-called AI results are shit anyways and people should know it is chef's kiss.

"We will change the law" means they haven't changed it yet. And this PM is so god damn popular in his own party, they are just trying to get his possible replacement in in an otherwise unnecessary byelection. This sounds decisive but isn't a fait accompli by any stretch of the imagination. The tech big guns will sound amenable to such a policy but will do fuck all.

Didn't have it for ET but for Disney movies that weren't published on VHS at all because in my region they just kept rereleasing Snowwhite and Jungle Book in theaters periodically.

I've recorded songs off the radio too. I have copied VHSs as well later in life when a buddy had to bring over their recorder so we could hook them up to each other.

And the first music torrent was in maybe 7th grade and up. Somebody would get a new CD for their birthday or xmas and after a couple of weeks of exclusive listening Guns'n'Roses or Metallica would go from friend to friend where everybody got themselves a copy on cassette tape. There would be strategic planning like you get Michael Jackson (we didn't know back then) and you get U2 or whatever around December.

Yeah but it isn't here.

If you want to get picky, Xwitter didn't enshitify as laid out as a concept by Cory Doctorow. The best example is probably Amazon which went from being insanely user friendly to lock in users, to supplier-friendly and increasingly less so for users, until it had squeezed and shafted both groups. That's enshitification and it doesn't apply to Xwitter. They had problems to make money before a certain somebody bought it. They've been bleeding users since the eventually Nazi saluting manbaby bought it, who then wanted to sue advertisers who refused to buy ads on his service. There was no user lock-in and then a supplier lock-in. There was just shit. All their current problems are man made. By one specific man.

I would argue you cannot enshitify a service that was already shit. At this point this is more of a conshitidation.

Oh, man, this will affect tens of people.

I don't have a GitHub account. You're gonna have you sign up for one yourself. The links to their accounts are on the website I linked to above. Just click on the avatars.

https://www.fossify.org/ only lists reddit and Telegram of all services. You may be able to get in touch with some of the contributors via GitHub. And you could see if some of them recycle their user names on Mastodon.

To be fair, if anything on the internet has too much traffic, it becomes unavailable. That strategy is at the heart of (D)DOS attacks.