That looks like the St. Petersburg Paradox. Much ink has been spilled over it.

The expected payout is infinite. At any point, the “rational” (profit-maximizing) decision is to keep flipping, since you wager a finite sum of money to win an infinite sum. It’s very counter-intuitive, hence called a paradox.

In reality, a casino has finite money. You can work out how many coin flips it takes to bankrupt it. So you can work out how likely it is to reach that point with a given, finite sum of money. Martingale strategies have already been mentioned.

Come to think of it. That DMCA argument would really wreck fair use.

It’s illegal to remove “copyright management information” (CMI). In this case meaning the FOSS license. The argument was, that when copilot spits out verbatim snippets of source code without the license, this constitutes removal of the CMI. The point of the argument was that fair use is not a defense under the DMCA. These verbatim snippets are pretty obvious fair use to me, so countering that defense is important if they hope to get anywhere with their suit.

By the same argument, any meme image is illegal. They are taken from somewhere without the original license or attribution. Yikes.

If it’s not clear, then it’s not compliant with the GDPR.

It’s not thaaat soft. It’s not quite clear what it means, exactly. The courts still have to work that out. But you will not get away with just any argument.

It’s never legal to collect more data than necessary and/or for an unspecified purpose.

Tracking for personalized ads could be based either on consent or on legitimate interest. If it’s consent, then they need to tell you up front what specifically they use the data for and some other things. If it’s legitimate interest, they can just start doing it, but still have to tell you afterward and also inform you that you have the right to opt out.

I guess, practically, whether a company claims one or the other is whether it feels lucky about a court case. With consent, you are on the safe side but it’s a little harder to get. Legitimate interest may get you more ad money in the short run but eventually, maybe or maybe not, a fine.

Don’t listen to me on that. I have no idea how the community feels on copyright or fair use. Whenever AI comes up, the most dogmatic copyright maximalism dominates. On other subjects, the debate is more nuanced. I don’t know how that fits together at all. But I guarantee you, if Alsup ruled on a case like this/OP, they would… Well, most comments would not like the ruling or him.

That’s not correct. The GDPR explicitly gives “direct marketing” as an example of a “legitimate interest”.

The GDPR prohibits processing of personal data, unless there is a legal basis for it. Personal data covers a lot more than you think, as does processing.

What counts as a legal basis may be seen in Article 6 of the GDPR. Consent is one option, but it must be informed and freely given; a very high bar. If you have a legitimate interest, you may process data without prior consent. However, you must still provide the “data subject” with information and give them the option to opt out. They must tell you the legal basis, which they have done, but also what exactly that their interest is. (And a couple more things.) There should be a statement somewhere containing that information.

The GDPR gives “direct marketing” as an example of a legitimate interest. Some DPOs interpret the term extremely narrowly, though. It’s a contentious issue. The courts will work it out over the next few years.

Yes, I know what you mean. But looking at the comments here, Fair Use is not a popular concept. I remember that Alsup specifically quoted the copyright clause in his ruling. I can’t imagine any argument that would make him rule, on the whole, for the plaintiffs in a case such as this.

Judge William Alsup.

Now I remember that guy. He decided oracle vs google. I can’t imagine he has many fans here.

Wow, long take. I didn’t want “much the same” to bear a lot of meaning. In the german inquisitorial system, in a criminal case, the judge takes over the (police) investigation from the prosecution. When the police become aware of a possible crime, they inform the bureau of the state attorney. A state attorney is responsible for the investigation and for uncovering the truth. But once the case goes to court, the responsibility goes to the judge.

In a civil suit, the parties are basically in charge and not the judge. It’s true that the judge has a more active role in German civil procedure. While the court is not supposed to run its own investigation, it can request additional evidence if it’s necessary to judge the arguments of either side. I am not clear on the details. Where matters of fact must be determined by an expert, either party can request the court to provide one. But they can also make their own arrangements. The court can also solicit an expert opinion on its own, if necessary. Typically, the expert’s opinion is given as a written statement. An oral disposition may happen when questions remain. Afaik, it’s unusual to depose an expert without having first requested a written statement. Either party or the court may question the witness.

Hmm. In what way is the German system more effective? I know of some hair-raising cases. Me, I blame the law-makers and not the judges, but others see it differently. I can’t think of a single related case, where I’d say that the judgement served everyone’s interests.

ETA: Bad question. You explained how the German system is more effective. I’m wondering about cases where I can see this in action. IE: “well-informed and incisive decisions on anything in the computer hardware / EE or computer science fields.”

You should emphasize more that the difference adversarial system vs inquisitorial system exists in criminal law only. In civil/private matters - eg copyright disputes like in this instance - continental Europe handles matters much the same.

It doesn’t work like that. A copy is a copy. Only if you can make it credible that you independently produced the same code, can you get through with that. Hence, clean room implementations. It’s not strictly necessary but deters lawsuits.

Apparently there’s some confusion here what the judge ruled. This particular part is about claims under the DMCA, not copyright infringement. The relevant sections can be seen here: https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap12.html [edit: link fixed. The claim was that “copyright management information” was removed; prohibited under these sections.]

Here’s the original text for those who want to know more (link via The Verge): https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24796955-github-copilot-claims-dismissed

I’m categorically unable to name a justice or court jurisdiction anywhere in the US that consistently makes well-informed and incisive decisions on anything in the computer hardware / EE or computer science fields.

Can you name one in Germany? Just asking.

Anyway, at this stage of the trial only legal experts are involved. The judge examines if the legal arguments are sound, assuming the allegations are true. Whether the allegations are actually true will only be determined in the future. That’s also when Fair Use comes in. At that point, you need outside experts to advise on the non-legal aspects.

Yes, she said that. But what she said there just doesn’t make any sense.

I thought she made some very good points, but the quote in the title makes no sense to me.

Ahh. TV shows before everything became political. Just two guys hating each other for very silly reasons completely unconnected to anything on earth.

Lagerfeld was right.

Haywire. You don’t see that often anymore.

The article alleges, though without evidence, that the tracking is just an excuse to raise rates.

A quick search didn’t turn up quite the right statistics, but traffic fatalities have been seriously on the rise in the US. That probably implies higher payouts. (WP)

But also, when trackable unsafe drivers have to pay more (and trackable safe driver less), then the unsafe drivers will prefer to be untrackable. You may be on the receiving end of the recalculated actuary tables.