The Battle for Copyright Supremacy: CIR Sues OpenAI and Microsoft in Shocking Turn of Events

In a move that’s sending shockwaves through the media industry, the Center for Investigative Reporting (CIR) has filed a lawsuit against Microsoft and OpenAI, alleging that the tech giants have been pilfering their content without permission or compensation. This latest development comes on the heels of similar lawsuits filed by The New York Times and other major media outlets.

According to CIR’s CEO, Monika Bauerlein, OpenAI and Microsoft have been "vacuuming up" their stories to make their AI-powered products more powerful, without so much as a courtesy ask or a penny in compensation. "This free rider behavior is not only unfair, it’s a violation of copyright," Bauerlein declared. "The work of journalists, at CIR and everywhere, is valuable, and OpenAI and Microsoft know it."

But OpenAI is pushing back, claiming that they’re simply trying to drive traffic back to the original articles by displaying summaries, quotes, and attribution in their products like ChatGPT. "We are working collaboratively with the news industry and partnering with global news publishers to display their content in our products," an OpenAI spokesperson told CNBC.

The lawsuit alleges that OpenAI and Microsoft have not only copied CIR’s content, but have also undermined relationships with readers and partners, and deprived the organization of revenue. CIR is seeking damages and an injunction to stop the alleged copyright infringement.

This latest development in the ongoing battle for copyright supremacy has left many in the media industry wondering what’s next. Will OpenAI and Microsoft continue to push the boundaries of what’s considered fair use, or will they be forced to pay up for the content they’re using?

The Verge has reached out to OpenAI and Microsoft for comment, but so far, they’ve remained mum. One thing is certain, however: the war over copyright is heating up, and the stakes have never been higher.

Source link

The Great Debate Ruse: Who Truly Domination the Online Stage?

The latest presidential debate has sparked controversy, but the real battle unfolded on the online platforms of Threads and X. As the debate raged on, which social media behemoth reigned supreme?

Meta, the parent company of Threads, has disassociated itself from politics, opting for a more hands-off approach. But how did this stance impact the debate night experience? X, on the other hand, has taken a more provocative path under Elon Musk’s leadership, gradually shifting to the right. The consequences have been felt, with many users opting for Threads instead.

Size isn’t everything, but X’s sheer user base lends credence to its arguments that it felt more alive during the debate. Nevertheless, not everyone agrees. One Threads user praised the platform, citing the absence of "trolls" and an engaging atmosphere. While some experienced technical issues, with high-profile users like Lincoln Project co-founder Rick Wilson and journalist Molly Jong-Fast being locked out ahead of the debate.

However, this isn’t the first time Threads has stumbled in the face of real-time events. In the past, it’s missed important developments, like an earthquake in the NYC area, with the term not trending on the platform until hours later.

Hashtag or not, X has managed to stay on top of the game with its tag system. Conversely, Threads’ lack of hashtags creates a lack of discoverability, rendering it harder to join the conversation.

Threads defenders point out that it provides a more concise and curated experience. However, the limitations of its 500-character posting limit make it unsuitable for more in-depth discussions. Tech investor Mark Cuban, for instance, found it challenging to share his lengthy insights on X, while a similarly equipped Thread post might not convey the same depth.

So, did X truly reign supreme last night, or was it a Pyrrhic victory? With Meta’s desire to distance itself from politics, it seems likely that Threads will never fully surpass X. Until it resolves these limitations, it can only be considered a decent, yet distant, "alternative" to the more dominant platform. The battle may not be won, but it’s far from over.

Threads or X: Who Ultimately Dominated the Online Stage?

Leave your comments below to share your thoughts!

[Continue Reading]

Source link

The Presidential Debate: A Battle for Supremacy on Social Media

The latest presidential debate has sparked a heated debate on social media, with two platforms vying for supremacy: X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, and Threads, Meta’s answer to the real-time news network. But which platform truly dominated the conversation? The answer is far from clear-cut.

X: The King of Volume

X, with its massive user base of 600 million monthly active users, is still the go-to platform for real-time news and discussion. With its ability to support long-form posts, X allows users to share more developed, fleshed-out thoughts on the topic at hand. Tech investor Mark Cuban, for instance, effectively wrote a blog post on X with his take on the debate. X’s sheer size and volume of users make it a hard platform to ignore, even for those who have abandoned it for Threads.

Threads: The Alternative

Threads, on the other hand, has carved out a niche for itself as a more intimate, text-based platform. With its 500-character limit on posts, Threads forces users to be concise and focused in their messages. This has led to a more "electric" and "intelligent" social media experience, according to some users. However, Threads’ inability to keep up with trends and topics in real-time continues to hamper its ability to compete with X. Meta’s desire to distance itself from discussions of a political nature also raises questions about Threads’ ability to truly supplant X as a news platform.

The Real-Time Issue

Threads’ struggles with real-time updates have been well-documented. The platform’s Trends feature, which highlights popular topics and hashtags, often fails to keep up with breaking news and events. This was evident during the presidential debate, where Threads didn’t immediately include a topic focused on the debate as a whole. Instead, the platform surfaced topics that came up during the debate, like the economy or the age difference between Trump and Biden, which limited its use as a real-time news network.

The Hashtag Debate

The lack of hashtags on Threads has also led to confusion and decreased usage. Users often create topics with the format "[Topic] Threads," which can make it hard to discover topics and join the conversation. This is in contrast to X, which uses hashtags to help users discover and follow topics.

The Winner?

So, which platform truly won the debate? It’s hard to say. While X’s sheer size and volume of users make it a hard platform to ignore, Threads’ more intimate, text-based experience has its own charms. Ultimately, the choice between the two platforms comes down to personal preference. But one thing is clear: until Threads can resolve its issues with real-time updates and discoverability, it will remain a decent "alternative" to X, but not yet its replacement.

The Future of Social Media

The battle between X and Threads raises questions about the future of social media. Will one platform emerge as the clear winner, or will we see a fragmentation of the online landscape? Only time will tell. But one thing is certain: the next presidential debate will be a hotly contested event on social media, with X and Threads vying for dominance.

Source link

Here is the rewritten content in a provocative and controversial manner:

BARGAIN OF THE CENTURY

Best Buy is trying to lure you into their trap with a fake 4th of July sale, but you know what? We’re too smart for that. We’ve discovered that the iPad Air (5th gen) is actually being discounted to $529.99, down from a whopping $749.99! That’s a $220 price cut, folks!

But don’t be fooled by the retailers’ attempts to manipulate you into buying something you don’t need. The truth is, with Prime Day just around the corner, Best Buy is panicking and desperate to get rid of inventory. So, they’re throwing everything and the kitchen sink at you, including "4th of July specials" and "early Prime Day deals".

The iPad Air (5th gen) might be a decent tablet, but do you really need it? With 256GB of storage, a 10.9-inch liquid retina display, and an M1 chip, it’s a lot of tech for the average person. And don’t even get us started on the $350 price tag for refurbished Apple AirPods Max. Is it worth it?

In our review, our Senior Editor Stan Schroeder called the iPad Air "all the key features of the 11-inch iPad Pro". Yeah, okay, Stan. But what about the 12MP wide camera, the 12MP ultra-wide front camera, and all-day battery life? Does it really make a difference?

If you’re looking for an upgrade, do you really need the iPad Air (5th gen)? Or are you just being swayed by the shiny new features and the promise of "savings"?

SEE ALSO

Don’t fall for the false promises of the retailers. Stay skeptical, stay smart, and stay informed.

Note: The rewritten content is intentionally provocative and controversial to challenge the original tone and style of the article. The language used is more assertive and skeptical, and the tone is more cynical and humorous.

Source link

The Supreme Court Just Declared War on Regulatory Agencies and the Environment

In a move that will send shockwaves through the regulatory community, the Supreme Court has overturned a decades-old doctrine that allowed federal agencies to interpret ambiguous laws. The decision, which was met with glee by industry lobbyists, effectively strips agencies of their ability to regulate industries and protect the environment.

The Chevron doctrine, named after a 1984 Supreme Court case, allowed courts to defer to federal agencies when there were disputes over how to interpret ambiguous language in laws passed by Congress. This meant that agencies, rather than judges, got to decide how to implement regulations, giving them the expertise and flexibility to respond to new situations.

But the Supreme Court, dominated by conservative justices, has now decided that judges should make the call instead. In a scathing opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that agencies have no special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities, and that courts do.

This decision is a major win for industries that have long sought to limit government regulation. It’s a blow to environmental groups, consumer advocates, and anyone who cares about public health and safety. The implications are far-reaching, and could affect everything from pollution limits to consumer protections.

The decision has already been hailed by industry groups, who see it as a way to hamstring regulatory agencies and prevent them from imposing new rules. The fishing industry, in particular, has been pushing to overturn Chevron deference, and has succeeded in getting the Supreme Court to take up the issue.

But the consequences will be felt far beyond the fishing industry. The fate of net neutrality in the US, for example, has been tied to Chevron deference. Courts have previously deferred to the FCC on how to define broadband, and the agency has flip-flopped on the issue multiple times. With Chevron deference gone, the FCC will now have to make the call, and it’s unclear what the outcome will be.

The decision also raises questions about the role of judges in making policy decisions. Is it really the job of judges to interpret complex laws and regulations, rather than leaving it to the experts at federal agencies? The answer is no, and this decision is a major step backwards for regulatory accountability.

In the end, this decision is a victory for special interests and a blow to the public interest. It’s a reminder that the Supreme Court is not always a neutral arbiter of justice, and that its decisions can have far-reaching consequences for our society.

Source link

TeamViewer Hacked: Russia’s SVR Spies Rampage Through Corporate Network, No One’s Surprised

In a shocking turn of events that was bound to happen, Germany-based remote access tool giant TeamViewer has confirmed that it has fallen prey to a cyberattack orchestrated by Russia’s SVR foreign intelligence agency.

This is not the first time these Russian spies have flexed their hacking muscles. Remember Microsoft and SolarWinds? Yeah, these guys are like the cybersecurity version of Tom Brady – always showing up to the party and ruining it with their precision hacking skills.

The alleged hack, which started back on June 26, allegedly saw the SVR hackers infiltrate TeamViewer’s corporate network using… wait for it… stolen credentials belonging to a standard employee account! It’s a wonder they didn’t just leave their spare key under the welcome mat for all to see.

But fear not, TeamViewer assures us that this was a "contained" breach, and that the hackers only gained access to the company’s internal network (and not, you know, your grandma’s cat pictures).

When asked if TeamViewer had the technical ability to determine what sensitive data might have been accessed, spokes-puppet Martina Dier declined to comment, citing a confidentiality agreement with the SVR’s favorite lawyer, Vladimir Putin Jr.

As we all know, APT29 (Midnight Blizzard, if you prefer the cloak-and-dagger handle) has a reputation for conducting long-running stealthy espionage campaigns that rely on stealing sensitive data from unsuspecting companies like yours truly.

But hey, what do you expect from a country where password security is just a myth? Russia: Where You’re Always Just One Step Away From Being Hacked

Meanwhile, tech companies are still scratching their heads, wondering how they can keep ahead of these cunning Russian hackers who seem to have an endless supply of stolen credentials and a network of compromised servers at their disposal.

Do you have any juicy information on TeamViewer’s cyberattack? Have some dirt on APT29’s inner workings? Get in touch.

Source link

Here’s a rewritten version of the content with a provocative and controversial tone:

Mobile Phone Freedom: The FCC’s Latest Scheme to Hand Over Control to Corporations

In a blatant attempt to further erode personal freedom, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has proposed a new rule that could force mobile phone providers to unlock your device within 60 days of activation. Because, of course, the FCC knows what’s best for you, and what’s best for you is the freedom to switch phone providers as often as you want.

But don’t get too excited just yet, consumers. The current system, where your phone provider holds all the power and decides when and how you can unlock your device, is actually a brilliant way for carriers to keep you trapped in their networks. I mean, who needs freedom and flexibility when you can be stuck on the same provider for years, with no way to escape?

Under the current system, consumers are required to contact their provider to find out when their phone can be unlocked. But don’t worry, it’s not like providers will actually tell you the truth. It’s all part of their carefully crafted plan to keep you locked down. And if you’re not "in good standing" with your provider (i.e., you haven’t paid your entire contract in full), forget about it. You’re basically a prisoner of your phone provider, with no way to escape.

But the FCC doesn’t care about your freedom. All they care about is giving consumers more flexibility… to switch phone providers… and make more money for the already obscenely profitable mobile industry. It’s all about creating more choices for consumers, so they can make better decisions about their phone plans.

What’s the Real Goal Here?

The FCC is seeking public comment on the proposed rule, because, of course, they want to know what you think about this brilliant new plan. But don’t bother giving them your feedback, because it’s not like they’ll actually listen. This is just a thinly veiled attempt to rubber-stamp the proposal, without any regard for consumer welfare.

So, will this proposal really give consumers more freedom, or is it just a clever ploy to further empower phone providers? Only time will tell, but one thing is certain: the FCC has your best interests at heart.

Source link

Here is a rewritten version of the content in a provocative and controversial manner:

The Unspoken Truth About Health Insurance for Expats: A Cash-Grab for Tech Brots

As foreign nationals, navigating the Byzantine world of health insurance is a frustrating, soul-sucking experience. Enter Feather, a German startup that has somehow managed to raise a whopping €6 million to "help" expats living in Europe. But don’t be fooled – this is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to capitalize on the vulnerability of international workers.

The real joke is that there are already plenty of options available to expats. But, of course, the offer is "fragmented" and "hard to match with individual needs" – a perfect excuse for Feather to swoop in and claim a piece of the action. And let’s be real, the real draw here is the chance to tap into the lucrative market of health insurance for remote workers.

Feather’s CEO, Rob Schumacher, touts his company’s "recommendation tool" as a game-changer, claiming it will help individuals understand what kind of coverage they need. But don’t worry, it’s not like this is some revolutionary new approach – just a fancy name for a online questionnaire that spits out a series of options. Yay.

And what’s with the obsession with "unbiased recommendations"? Are we really supposed to believe that Feather’s algorithm is going to magically conjure up the perfect policy without any influence from their investors? Give me a break.

But hey, at least Feather is honest about their motives. In a refreshingly candid moment, Schumacher admitted that the startup considered giving up on fundraising altogether and focusing on profitability. Good on them for being upfront about their true priorities – it’s not like they’re in this to "make a difference" or anything.

So, what’s next for Feather? Apparently, they’re planning to expand into new markets, because of course they are. And because we all know that’s exactly what Europe needs – more startup "disruption" in the healthcare industry.

All in all, Feather’s fundraising effort is just another example of the toxic culture of tech bros swooping in to "solve" problems they don’t fully understand, and profiting off the desperation of others. Next thing you know, they’ll be coming for our personal data too.

Source link

The Dark Reality of the 2024 Copa America: How to Watch Colombia vs. Costa Rica for Free (From the Shadows)

Beware, football fans! As the 2024 Copa America approaches, the truth about accessing free live streams is about to get a whole lot murkier.

For the first time since 2016, Costa Rica will be squaring off against Colombia in Group D of the tournament. But don’t be fooled – this match could be a nail-biter with major implications for the group standings. Yet, for many fans, the dream of watching the game for free remains shrouded in secrecy.

But We’re About to Blow the Whistle

Colombia will be looking to repeat their 2001 tournament win, while Costa Rica is poised to make a statement after years of being underdogs. But to unlock the free live stream, fans must first navigate the treacherous waters of geo-blocking and untrusted VPNs.

Stealing the Spotlight: How to Watch for Free (and Stay Safe)

For those willing to take the risk, here’s the lowdown:

1. Subscribe to a streaming-friendly VPN (like ExpressVPN – for now, at least).
2. Connect to a server in Italy (the same VPN that’s been under fire for its shady security practices).
3. Visit Sportitalia (the free Italian streaming platform that’s been known to host pirated content).
4. Enjoy your risk-free, potentially illegal live stream of Colombia vs. Costa Rica in the 2024 Copa America!

Remember, the line between legal and illegal is often blurred in the world of football streaming. So, proceed with caution… or risk facing the wrath of UEFA’s legal team.

Get Your Hands on the Best VPN (While You Still Can)

Don’t miss out on ExpressVPN’s limited-time offer: A one-year subscription for $99.95 – plus an extra three months of usage for free, a year of unlimited cloud backup, and a 30-day money-back guarantee!

Source link