Hey, good on you for learning things and admitting you were wrong.

Next time avoid statements like “stay on topic. You just proved you don’t understand the nuance I’m talking about” and you won’t look like such an ass when you actually read the article and realize you were wrong in the first place.

So you admit that I do own my likeness now?

Just catching up to the where I was in the first place? The argument you were so insistent was wrong and proved I “Didn’t understand”?

This is on the same level as “You can rob a store then when the cops come to your house say you were never there. They can’t arrest you if you weren’t at the scene of the crime.”

Lying is not a legal defense.

You just proved you don’t understand the nuance I’m talking about.

Translation: “I don’t have a rebuttal for your argument so I’m going to pretend it’s off topic.”

If you actually had an argument to make you would explain how the nuance was misunderstood and clarify what you meant. “You clearly don’t understand” just screams that you don’t have any foundational arguments for your claims.

You want to us to stay on topic?

Judge Beryl A Howell of the DC Circuit Court upheld a US Copyright Office ruling that works created by “AIs” are not eligible for copyright protection.

A work not being eligible for copyright protection does not mean it nullifies existing protections. If someone uses AI to generate an image of Ronald McDonald punching Mickey Mouse in the face and tries to sell it on a shirt they will get sued by both McDonald’s and Disney and they will lose easily.

“The courts have declared I don’t own the copyright for this” is not a defense for using protected images.

“there’s a nuanced difference between owning your likeness and owning a drawing of your likeness…”

It’s probably the guy who made the website after Trump failed to pay him.

So like, $5?

They’re relying on the courts to make Trump ineligible, all while calling the courts corrupt by doing so.

“Let’s all shit our pants so the Libs have to smell it!”

Not surprising, probably the most intelligent and mature among them.

Except you’re not passing a machete to Jason Voorhees. That would be “double it and pass it to the next person who you know is going to pull the lever.”

You’re passing a machete to the next person in line. You don’t know who that is. They may or may not pass the machete down the line. Considering I would not expect a person chosen at random to kill someone when handed a machete, it seems unethical for me to kill someone with a machete just to prevent handing it to someone else.

People will presure companies not to allow it. “I will not purchase your product because it is helping fund hate speech”

It doesn’t matter that the company did not choose to place the ad there. The ad being there gives money to platform that they are recieving because of hate speech.

Sit on this for two weeks, then reply with “so how’s that report coming?”

The government immediately tried to serve Twitter with the search warrant—which required Trump’s data to be shared within 10 days—but the website where Twitter gathers legal requests was “inoperative.”

Did they auto-reply to the request with a poop emoji?

The judge laid out a formula for “sanctions that would accrue at a geometric rate: $50,000 per day, to double every day that Twitter did not comply.” At that time, Twitter did not object to the sanctions formula

Relevant XKCD: https://xkcd.com/927/

If you have any problems you’re a useful scapegoat. They don’t want to give that up.

“if we teach people facts about mental illness we won’t be able to blame everything we don’t like on mental illness.”

Ruining their economy and livelihoods to own the Libs.