Comments by "" (@zachrodan7543) on "LegalEagle" channel.

  1. as David Brin once described the internet, rather prophetically back in 1988, trying to find information online can sometimes be like trying to quench your thirst using a fire-hose.
    519
  2. the point you brought up about fair use, that in addition to being "transformative" it must be "for a separate use" is I think a big issue with the ai artwork: as I said in my comment about the comparison to the two google cases, these ai art generators are trained on work produced by other artists in order to be able to create works that compete with those artists. I rather doubt anyone would consider that to be a separate use
    285
  3. "IF you have suffered a data breach?" From the sound of things, every single american is actively suffering a data breach by the name of elon musk.
    91
  4. I find it hard to believe that the court would refrain from arguing that contraception and decisions about who to have intimate relationships "pertain to potential life". the whole point of contraception is to prevent the unintentional creation of "potential life", and having non-heterosexual intimate relations means you are doing nothing with your potential to contribute to "potential life". I don't buy that they will refrain from making such arguments if given the chance, and it terrifies me that they would prioritize the "life" of a "potential life" over the "liberty and pursuit of happiness" of an active, existing life.
    67
  5. Something tells me that, even if there is a legal means to outlaw porn, making it happen and making the new law stick will be harder than outlawing alcohol... and we all know how well that worked from 1920 to 1933...
    45
  6.  @matirion  the prompt and the adjustments are indirect controls. when we talk about a human touch in the context of art, we mean the way the artist actively decides exactly what shape and color to make the elements that constitute the work. the active decision to make the clouds that particular shade of green, and the hill on the horizon that precise shape. with an ai, you merely say "green clouds, rounded hill" and pick whichever output you like the most. yes you can tweak the process a bit, but at no point are you actively choosing how the idea of "green clouds and rounded hill" is expressed. it is not your expression of the idea, but merely your selection of a randomly generated attempt at capturing the idea, that becomes the output of the process.
    17
  7. it is unfair to not inform the jury. while it is true that telling the jury about the cap could influence them to move some of the punitive damages into being compensatory damages, I would not be surprised if the reverse is true as well: that juries might sometimes hold back on the compensatory damages, thinking that they are also assigning a significant amount of punitive damages, only for those punitive damages to then be cut by a cap they did not know existed.
    16
  8.  @matirion  can you though? I think you are overestimating how much control a user has over the output of an ai. Because of the way the technology works, the only way to get it to generate the exact same piece given the exact same prompt and settings is if you also make it start from the same seed, and the only way to get that perfect seed is trial and error, as the seed is so far abstracted from the result that trying to manually alter the seed would be a fools errand. a human, even when using one of those fancy tools, still directly decides what to put where, and what everything looks like. a piece created by a human is capturing their particular expression of an idea, as they envision it in their mind. a human using an ai to try to generate that is trying to describe that expression in words, and while, you know how a picture is said to be worth a thousand words? i'd argue it takes far more than even that if you wanted to precisely describe what a picture looks like using words only. if you are able to describe to the ai at that level of detail what you want, to the point that it has no choice but to give you the same image regardless of the seed, then you have skills which are absent from most authors, who describe what things look like as part of their job.
    15
  9. does this mean that an unwilling pregant mother who is unable to get an abortion in a state like arizona now has the right to sue the fetus for making a mess of her body and ruining her plans for the future? because one of the rights that comes with personhood is the right to be sued
    13
  10.  @mborok  Interesting that you should bring up Picasso... I have a hunch that the AI would be particularly skilled at making things convincingly in the style of Picasso: both Picasso and the AI machines seem to share a certain level of disregard for basic anatomical details like number of fingers or shape of body... those characteristics that people often have come to associate would be much harder to notice if it was imitating the style of picasso... (and I have no issue with the idea of an ai trained on picasso's works: they are all public domain anyways, so there is no copyright to infringe upon)
    11
  11.  @matirion  "you can freely state that an image consists of x pixels of color y next to z black pixels" there is a point where that becomes indistinguishable from the image itself. after all, that is basically the way the image is encoded by a computer so that it knows how to display it to begin with. I would be interested to hear a legal expert's take on whether this is actually any different from the image itself with regards to whether or not that is a "copy" of the image, as I suspect that treating it as distinct would mean that creators of images posted online have no rights to their own images at all.
    9
  12. It is right up there with "unemplyment is down, ever since we changed our definition of unemployment to exclude those deemed 'unemployable'"
    8
  13. regarding the comparison to the two google cases, I think it is worth noting that in both cases, the thing google made could be seen as INCREASING access and awareness (and therefore revenue and market) for the copyrighted properties in question. AI art generation, on the other hand, has arguably the opposite effect: rather than helping people find and give money and recognition to the original creators of the copyrighted works, ai art generators are able to try and serve as a replacement for the very workers whose work they were trained on.
    6
  14. I mean, that would be a pretty easy ruling to make... but I don't think it actually addresses the matter at issue.
    6
  15.  @j0hnn13K  unless things have changed, isn't it illegal to intentionally air false information in a way that could be construed as a newscast? weren't laws like that passed after the war of the worlds debacle? consider: it is not uncommon for businesses to have a tv playing. it is also not uncommon for someone to be flipping through channels and stumble upon a broadcast already in progress. it is also not unreasonable to assume that someone might have stumbled upon tucker carlson without knowing that it was meant as satire (assuming it even was). the reason the war of the worlds broadcast was a problem wasn't because it didn't make clear at any point that it was a work of fiction: it was stated clearly that it was an adaptation of a work of fiction at least once before things got crazy, and at least once after things were already crazy. the issue is that people who tuned in after the warning that it was a work of fiction had no way of knowing that it wasn't an actual newscast, and thought that it was actually the end of the world. Assuming the laws that were passed after that are still in place, anything that could be interpreted as "news" by someone under any reasonable circumstance, such as having just tuned in, should be subject to the laws against hoax broadcasts. This is actually why anytime you see a news broadcast on a tv show, the full tv screen and some people are in the shot: it makes it very clear that the "newscast" you are seeing is part of a work of fiction
    5
  16. trump needs a lesson in logic: "P, then Q" is not equivalent to "not P, then not Q"
    4
  17. Which requires a 3/4th majority vote in order to ratify. We can try, but it would be incredibly difficult to pull off, given how rarely any legislative action seems to reach that level of agreement these days...
    3
  18. a fallacy which was apparently not lost on the judges, who made the exact same point in their statement...
    3
  19. 1:30 how much of that statement is your actual belief, and how much of it is you protecting yourself and your clients, on the off-chance some of the supreme court justices see this video (possibly shortly before you argue a case in front of them).
    3
  20. THANK YOU FOR MAKING THIS VIDEO! I have been hoping to see a lawyer's take on the topic
    3
  21. "it depends" and "it's complicated" to the same question?! quite the lawyers' double whammy that is
    3
  22. I think my favorite case of a spiteful action by a property owner (although as far as I am aware, this was totally legal) was in cape cod, where someone wanted to remodel their house that was in a historical neighborhood that had a covenant that prevented any such structural modifications, or even moving the house back away from the street. their solution: paint the house (which was in a neighborhood where all the houses are white), a VIVID SHADE OF LIME GREEN. (nothing in the rules said they couldn't paint the house, after all)
    3
  23. um... that sounds to me like quantum mechanics, if you replace permissible with obligatory
    3
  24. curious and anxiously awaiting your video analysis looking at what happens in a situation like what is going on with mifepristone, and the contradictory court rulings that happened within an hour of each other
    2
  25. objection: we do not have definitive evidence that "aliens have never come to earth." we simply have a lack of evidence that they ever have.
    2
  26. I think that is one of the most unanimous takes I have seen in one of your ground news ads: it appears news on all sides of the spectrum think USAID is important and should not be killed
    2
  27. THIS IS NOT ABOUT ISRAEL! THIS IS NOT ABOUT PALESTINE! THIS IS ABOUT BASIC HUMAN DIGNITY! Those posts about the arrest look to me like the type of signs kids who misbehave sometimes have to wear in media, such as "punched my classmate" or whatnot: the purpose is to punish through public humiliation. I may be on the side of Israel in the conflict, although I certainly don't agree with everything they have done in this conflict, but nobody, regardless of their viewpoints, deserves to be publicly humiliated by the government for their apparent viewpoints. Nobody deserves to be stripped of their rights and their dignity in retaliation for speaking out against perceived wrongdoing.
    2
  28. I definitely hope that on january 20th, things return to normal and we can convince ourselves that the past four years were little more than a realistic collective nightmare. I also recognize that this isn't going to happen... but one can still wish it was all a bad dream...
    2
  29. thank you for explaining the scope of international law in regard to the war in ukraine.
    2
  30.  @iPuzzlePirate  I don't know about california, but I know that my home state of washington does a top-two primary, which might be the same thing as what you are talking about. doesn't do anything for the presidential elections, but at least for state and local positions, we do top-two primaries, which sometimes result in both candidates in the general being candidates from the same party.
    2
  31. If this video is teaching me one thing, it is that we need congress to pass some sort of legislation clarifying the definition of the word "emergency" as used in laws relating to presidential ability to invoke a "state of emergency" as a justification for acts which they would not be authorized to take without such a "state of emergency". How hard could it be to come to some sort of common-sense definition, or at least agree on some boundaries such as: "A state of emergency can only be called in response to an externally caused change which poses an immediate threat, or otherwise demands an immediate response to prevent loss of life, national security, or international standing." The key word, of course, being "change". If nothing about the situation being cited as an "emergency" has changed (outside of who you are asking), I don't think that can be called an emergency. If the so-called "emergency" is a situation that has been going on for years without it presenting the country with any significant cost or burden that demanded an urgent response, it is not an emergency.
    2
  32. wait... is steelman v. strawman an actual case? because if so, I have questions about what random minor dispute between two average joes with coincidence prone names led to such an amazing case name...
    2
  33. was someone having too much fun being finally freed (for now) from the mess that cloaked the country in uncertainty and dread for the past several months? very fun and interesting video
    1
  34. 1:07 objection: leading the witness
    1
  35. here is a proposal: rather than forcing parodists to reveal that they are being satirical explicitly, just require them to put ◆ somewhere in their product (they can choose what color, with no restrictions)
    1
  36. for context, this was somewhat referencing a minor detail from the book "Earth" by David Brin, in that one of the characters of that book was a film effects person who would put a small diamond icon in the corner of their work so that the viewers would be able to tell that what they were looking at wasn't reality. the book is a really good near-future scifi novel which was written in 1988, and accurately predicted a scary amount of things about our society, especially for a book which came out before the world wide web was invented.
    1
  37. 7:59 I believe that flies directly in the face of "innocent until proven guilty". They are claiming that these people are guilty PRECISELY BECAUSE OF A LACK OF EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THEM BEING GUILTY.
    1
  38. I think that this would require a constitutional amendment, something that seems unlikely to happen here given the polarization of the country. this might be possible to work around if this was instead a method for appointing interim justices, who would then also probably have a better chance of being nominated for the post permanently. The constitution does state, after all, that the justices are to be nominated by the president and confirmed by the senate; it says nothing about the possibility of interim justices should the need arise.
    1
  39.  aaron guest  contact tracing is in no way unconstitutional. 3blue1brown did a video about a method of using our constant connection to our phones to help with contract tracing, but which involves no personal data whatsoever being collected from anyone. washington state has since put this method into practice. there is no need for contact tracing to infringe on any sort of privacy, given that the only thing relevant for contact tracing is the simple binary of whether you were in prolonged contact with someone who recently tested positive.
    1
  40. 2:35 seems legit to me...
    1
  41. I am beginning to think that a lot of the problems that we are seeing from trump could have been solved if he had a basic understanding of the laws of the country. as such, might I propose that the next time a constitutional convention is called (as I don't think this is worth the trouble of a constitutional convention on its own), an amendment be proposed adding a certain level of legal training as an eligibility requirement for elected office? for starters, this is something that a large number of office holders already have, and I see no downside to an expectation that senators, representatives, and presidents have been trained in the law, such that they would then know the rules about what the law is, what their job is, what they are able to do, and what they are expressly prohibited from doing.
    1
  42. I would suspect that, while he didn't say it explicitly, this pardon may have been intended as a defensive measure to prevent the incoming trump administration from meddling in or exascerbating hunter biden's legal situation: it is not unreasonable to imagine that had hunter biden not been pardonned, the incoming trump administration justice department could make things intollerable for hunter biden, just as they used hunter biden's legal situation for political purposes in the past as ammunition to attack joe biden during the election. I do get the argument that it is an abuse of power, but i would rebut that argument by pointing to the distinct possibility that without this pardon, hunter biden would be the victim of much greater abuses of power under the next administration (which has promised vengeance against its political opponents, something which it surely lacks the legal authority to do, but which it might be making the rules for itself amyways and thus just go around thay lack of authority by the power of cronyism)
    1
  43. Specifically, as you stated at 2:10 "President Biden said he would not pardon Hunter Biden because he believed in the due process of law". With the rhetoric trump and his allies have spewed, I think it is hard for anyone in their right mind to believe that due process of law and the underlying aspects that it relies on (impartiality of courts and the legal system as a whole, for instance), would be intact under the incoming administration. I would argue the trump rhetoric makes it rather foolhardy to believe thay trump and cronies would continue to adhere to that due process of law which biden was so eager to believe in.
    1
  44. There seem to be only 2 types of countries in europe: those that are, or want to be, members of NATO, and those that are hostile to the united states. If we invade our NATO allies, there will only ne the later type of country in europe.
    1
  45. arguably, anything that is displayed on a television broadcast which could be reasonably construed as a newscast should be treated as such for the purpose of legal interpretation. in the clip you presented of carlson's rant, the fox NEWS logo was clearly emphasised, along with the same sort of summary-providing banner paraphrasing the key points carlson was saying. exactly the way you see in a newscast. if this was meant as satire, don't they risk running into the "hoax newscast" laws that were passed after things like the war of the worlds fiasco?
    1
  46. regarding triton destroying the grotto, and whether or not there is any legal issue there: hard no. while he may not be disney's most... judicially inclined... monarch (queen of hearts, if I had to name one), he is still the king in a fairly medieval-style kingdom, so odds are whatever he says goes when it comes to matters of law.
    1
  47. ​ @LegoAssassin098  Is it safe to assume that the justice department will likely rely on this jurisdictional matter on appeal as well, seeing as it seems like not only did the judge acknowledge the existence of 44 USC 2204, she then proceeded to disregard it without proper justification.
    1
  48. Thank you for lighting a path forward through this murk. As jefferson said, we may need to resort to rebellion in the face of tyrrany. As someone else in this comment thread pointed out, the american military exists, and is considerred one of the strongest in the world. But not all wars need to be fought with guns. If the country grinds to a halt, those in power will be forced to listen. Additionally, they cannot force the people to go back to work, as slavery is expressly forbidden by the constitution, and there aren't enough potential slavedrivers to enforce an order for the populace to return to work. Here is hoping that there will be sufficient backlash from all sides that things are forced to change for the better before it can come to extreme measures such as economic warfare...
    1
  49. how likely is it for trump's case asking for a special master to ultimately get thrown out on appeal over jurisdictional matters (namely, that the court he is asking for a special master is not the court explicitly required for cases involving presidential records by the PRA)
    1
  50. is there a reason why this isn't in the "real law review" playlist?
    1