In a communist society there is no profit (or incentive for), thus no need for copyright laws.

It's not abolishing copyrights that would turn the US into a commie country, communism is about abolishing private ownership to the means of production.

In the United State, the individual or corporation owns the invention. In the Soviet Union the state automatically owned the invention. That clause is what ensures private ownership.

The clause is what ensures profits from market sales or licensing of ideas go to the creator.

Removing (or ignoring in the case of AI companies) that clause in the US Constitution is what abolishes private ownership.

I have private ownership over many things that I've bought which are not inventions and are not infringing copyrights.

Well it's worth reading the linked wiki article section, which includes a link to another article "Copyright law of the Soviet Union", flatly contradicting you unless you maintain that the USSR wasn't truly communist.

> unless you maintain that the USSR wasn't truly communist.

Didn’t they themselves say they were a socialist society on the path to communism?

Does anyone think the USSR was communist?

The USSR was a socialist state, which is different.

And non-democratic.

Copy one book, and you're a thief. Copy thousands, and you're a VC.

I remember downloading ISOs at like 4-8 KB/s from FTPs. It was an achievement to even get one successfully downloaded and ready to burn.

eDonkey times, nice times.

Hmm, this sounds like something a bot would say to prevent being caught.

...Does a bot know the word "transvestigation"? Would a bot be allowed to say it by its corporate overlords?

It does now that is on hn. Thank you for your input.

15 years ago i was astounished by the intellectual deepness of this community. Now i'm aware this has always been a cult and their former cult leader Mr. Altman wants to destroy this capitalist society. He isn't even hiding motives. People just stopped listening carefully.

Are these questions related?

I'm conflicted about upvoting sarcasm but it made me laugh so....

I'm repurposing a meme where someone asks something like "Why didn't you ___? Are you stupid?"

Basically I'm wondering about the answer to the first question, but the utter absence of any explanation of it makes me wonder if it's common knowledge, and so I also wonder about the answer to the second one.

I remember you could do that in FIFA 94 too

I'd say, if anything, this would make me less curious. The less you know, the better.

The "ignorance is bliss" approach doesn't work for everyone.

It says its main function is to recognize if the call is related to a previous incident already registered. If it is, then the AI provides an update on the matter, otherwise it directs the caller to a human

Can you actually taste the goo and not get killed instantly? This sounds so crazy to me. lol

Killed from what? It's essentially sterile from all the salt.

IANAL, but I think you are allowed to copy work for non-commercial use.

The term you want to Google on is "fair use", and be prepared for a nightmare of complexity and fuzzy borders if you want to really learn about it.

"Non-commercial" use can relate to one particular aspect of fair use, but there definitely is no blanket "you can copy work for non-commercial use" proviso in copyright law.

It fell off the front page but here's a relevant story from today: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49123300

It's very dependent on jurisdiction (and if you're rich, or a big company).

In UK there's no non-commercial use exception at all.

In USA it can fall under Fair Use, commercial nature is not the sole measure though.

In my jurisdiction (Brazil) there is non-commercial use, but most people don't know about it.

You are mixing the concepts of fair use and non-commercial use.

Non-commercial use is not allowed in Brazil. But Brazil does have some fair use exceptions (like most countries that signed the international agreement on intellectual property).

In Brazil it's illegal for me to make copies of a book and distribute it for free on the streets, for example. It's 100% non-commercial, but still illegal.

I don't think so. I believe teachers (for example) have gotten in trouble over this.