Dann muss man schon auch als solcher tätig sein, sonst nicht.

capitalism is a compilation of dick moves

You will still listen to it, watching movies, advertisements, playing video games…

Wikipedia prefers secondary sources, but I think that is not what user Star meant by primary. Just the sources that Wikipedia itself works with.

You don’t simply alter facts, logical reasoning and scientific standards.

Capitalism is reliant on a free market. That does not make it the same nor does that mean that a free market is reliant on capitalism. The concept described above is a free market, not capitalism.

You just described the free market, not capitalism.

They already got rid of it with their previous model years ago.

You’re adding another person to the equation (the player that sells their game) and everyone is supposed to profit? Someone will make a loss compared to the status quo for this to work out and it’s never the marketplace operator.

Hmm, kind of an open source Steam client that shares game files in a secure and verified peer to peer manner and only lets users play that have the corresponding NFT in their connected wallet. Now you’d only need an incentive for someone to develop something better and way more complex than Steam without making anything close to the same profit from it. Also you’d need a reason for publishers to sell their games this way, if after half a year they won’t sell a single copy anymore, as there is always someone that offers their used license cheaper.

Touching up your photograph or painting does not make it mine.

if you buy a fairphone maybe you do not buy new devices every year

only micro usb and very slow charging bricks in there

Fairphold

I am not a lawyer but the first question is probably a yes. AI is software and software does and can not hold any rights by itself as of today. The second question is what this post is about and the judge in the article said no, a human or company does not hold copyright over something AI creates. That does not mean, that anything touched by or created with the use of AI is not copyrightable. If you have your movie script error checked or rephrased with an AI tool it’s still your movie script with your orignal ideas in it.

You don’t “copyright something”. You have a copyright on everything you create yourself by default and you don’t on things that are not copyrightable. You can not put a copyright on something not copyrightable.

In practice this means if someone else copies your script without your consent, you can then try to enforce your exclusive copyright by suing them for copyright infringement. Then you need to proof and convince the judge of the originality of the work and that you put in significant creative effort.

we let the AI draw it for us

And still the list of ingredients and food preparation process will not be copyrighted, just the way the specific recipe is written. Anyone could write a simple rephrased version of that recipe which creates the same dish and sell it. Or sell the dish in their restaurant.

other humans perhabs

artist’s or ai generated?