|
International law is calvinball. You can do whatever you decide you can do and enforce. Like for an actual example, Malaysia has a war crimes tribunal that convicted George W Bush in 2012 for torture over Abu Ghraib. They could try to get the US to extradite him (that won't work) or invade and try to capture him (that won't work either). Practically they have no ability to enforce their judgment. For one that was actually enforced, Senegal convicted and imprisoned a president of Chad for mass murder, torture, and rape of Chadian citizens after he was forced out of power and fled to Senegal. Perpetrator, victims, and crimes all occurred outside of Senegal, but Senegal gave itself jurisdiction and had a way to enforce it. Foxfire_ fucked around with this message at 21:09 on Sep 4, 2020 |
#
?
Sep 4, 2020 21:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 07:29 |
|
|
Foxfire_ posted:International law is calvinball. You can do whatever you decide you can do and enforce. So malaysia has basically prevented bush from visiting because he'll be arrested if he lands there but otherwise nothing happens?
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2020 23:02
|
|
|
honda whisperer posted:So malaysia has basically prevented bush from visiting because he'll be arrested if he lands there but otherwise nothing happens? Basically, international law is “they’ve made their decision, now let them enforce it” only some of the people involved have nuclear weapons.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2020 23:11
|
|
|
Legal Questions: International Law is Calvinball
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2020 23:39
|
|
|
Canine Blues Arooo posted:Legal Questions: International Law is Calvinball I mean, most of it is. Some of it is extremely applicable and important for a bunch of countries to varying degrees though, such as the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights That's not Calvinball. At all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2020 14:36
|
|
|
International law is a legit thing yeah. It’s pretty nuanced tho and for people who grow up in a rogue white supremacist hate state it’s a little strange
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2020 14:44
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:I mean, most of it is. Some of it is extremely applicable and important for a bunch of countries to varying degrees though, such as the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights That particular one is not Calvinball because it's written and ratified and thus part of the usual legal structure of the states involved. Where international law gets wonky is when it's unwritten and applied to states that disagree with it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2020 16:26
|
|
|
Captain von Trapp posted:That particular one is not Calvinball because it's written and ratified and thus part of the usual legal structure of the states involved. Where international law gets wonky is when it's unwritten and applied to states that disagree with it. Yeah, I took a few weeks of international law, but the first case we were told to read consisted of America doing a bad thing, everyone agreeing that America had done a bad thing, and then absolutely nothing happening as a result, so I dropped it in favour of something which seemed like it had a practical purpose.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2020 17:07
|
|
|
International is different from domestic in that it's usually opt-in and there are no penalties for violating it besides what other countries are actually will do. For example, the UK decided to not accept Protocol 12 of ECHR (widening antidiscrimination) or Turkey has had occasional sketchy elections despite agreeing to the article about free & fair elections. Nothing has happened to them besides other countries issuing condemnations. Compare that to domestic law where it is applied to people regardless of if they agree to it & the state:person power asymmetry allows much more targeted enforcement. International law is peer-to-peer. You can get a big group condone/condemn some behavior, you can point out that someone is breaking a previous promise, you can stop trading with someone or punch them in the face, but there's no higher authority to impose rules or enforce anything. Domestic is superior-to-inferior.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2020 19:04
|
|
|
Peer to peer is a good way to say it
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2020 19:06
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Peer to peer is a good way to say it We were trying to download populism from Europe and caught a virus called fascism. In addition we got caught illegally downloading our system of racial discrimination and are being sued in the WTO court.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2020 19:26
|
|
|
ooh I know now let's talk about israel's border with palestine
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2020 19:58
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:ooh I know now let's talk about israel's border with palestine What border? It's ALL Palestine.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2020 20:20
|
|
|
Foxfire_ posted:Compare that to domestic law where it is applied to people regardless of if they agree to it & the state:person power asymmetry allows much more targeted enforcement. Much like the excellent enforcement of criminal activity we see at the highest levels of political and economic malfeasance in America. Thank goodness they don't get away with any of it, they might try to do it again! The law is entirely what the people with the power to enforce it say it is domestically too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2020 20:26
|
|
|
very important to enforce UN security council resolutions, except for when they can be freely ignored for fifty years
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2020 20:47
|
|
|
Naive neorealism is for edgy undergrads.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2020 11:55
|
|
|
If I post pictures of my wrecked truck on SA what are the chances that opposing counsel finds them and then enters my entire posting history into the court record as evidence that the defendant was in fact doing the world a service when he tried to murder me?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2020 13:12
|
|
|
bird with big dick posted:If I post pictures of my wrecked truck on SA what are the chances that opposing counsel finds them and then enters my entire posting history into the court record as evidence that the defendant was in fact doing the world a service when he tried to murder me? Pretty much a guarantee
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2020 21:31
|
|
|
bird with big dick posted:If I post pictures of my wrecked truck on SA what are the chances that opposing counsel finds them and then enters my entire posting history into the court record as evidence that the defendant was in fact doing the world a service when he tried to murder me? I am excited to be read into the record.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2020 22:36
|
|
|
Eminent Domain posted:I am excited to be read into the record. If it pleases the court—and I expect it will—Exhibit A: deez nuts
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2020 22:41
|
|
|
Bird with big dick
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2020 23:44
|
|
|
Suppose dick with a big bird should appear and post some random accident photos?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2020 03:01
|
|
|
If opposing counsel finds your pics on this dead comedy forum, PM me the lawyer’s contact information because that’s a job well done.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2020 03:05
|
|
|
euphronius posted:International law is a legit thing yeah. It’s pretty nuanced tho and for people who grow up in a rogue white supremacist hate state it’s a little strange  Can I empty quote this? I had something funny about factual correctness vs political correctness, but it faded like tears in rain, and this is only politically incorrect if you live in a rogue white supremacist hate state
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2020 04:13
|
|
|
Let the record show my dick is impressive and girthy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2020 11:21
|
|
|
I ran into this tweet while cleaning out my bookmarks and that's an interesting question. Any takers? https://twitter.com/SwiftOnSecurity/status/1225145117780140037 (I think the short answer to this and other related questions is that law and AI will be a very exciting field to be in for the next decade or so.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2020 00:34
|
|
|
I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core Disney"], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2020 00:45
|
|
|
ultrafilter posted:I ran into this tweet while cleaning out my bookmarks and that's an interesting question. Any takers? Huh? Here let me try: You train a human to reliably generate new 5 minute animated Disney cartoons. You sell this (the human's labor) as a product. Is the fact the human does not contain Disney intellectual property relevant, or irrelevant to infringement claims?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2020 01:30
|
|
|
ultrafilter posted:I ran into this tweet while cleaning out my bookmarks and that's an interesting question. Any takers? I would imagine the second piece of advice an attorney would give is to not call them Disney cartoons. The first being don't post about it on the internet.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2020 01:40
|
|
|
Irrelevant
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2020 01:41
|
|
|
I am not a lawyer, but I have done a bunch of AI. It's pretty hard to train a generative model without embedding training data (presumably copyrighted Disney images) in the finished model in a way that's fairly easy to prove.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2020 01:42
|
|
|
How it’s generated is irrelevant Disney owns the copyright on “Disney cartoons” to the extent that phrase means I guess copyrighted material It begs the question
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2020 01:46
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Huh? It's closer to: you raise a human in a closed environment that makes it trivially easy to prove that they have no knowledge of Disney, and yet train them to produce Disney shorts. Having typed that out I guess you still know about Disney though so it's still derived from it? I don't actually know anything technical about copyright law in the US but it certainly seems like you need to be actually copying a thing instead of coincidentally coming up with something similar? Assuming a fair world where Disney doesn't just stomp on things because of the massive power imbalance.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2020 01:47
|
|
|
If you had a million monkeys type for a million years and they, eventually, come up with “the corrections” by Jonathan Franzen you still could not sell it Ignore the million years and the lapse of copyright
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2020 01:49
|
|
|
ultrafilter posted:I ran into this tweet while cleaning out my bookmarks and that's an interesting question. Any takers? It seems weird to thought exercise an issue of with one of the most brand aggressive litigious companies in existence. You better be another billion dollar company backing the AI cartoon maker to even have a chance of seeing it succeed. And it being AI seems almost irrelevant, if the product is similar enough to the brand IP that a layperson could reasonably confuse the two why would it matter the source? It's still IP infringement? I'm not sure if "what a reasonable person could conclude" is a thing in legal arguments. pentyne fucked around with this message at 01:55 on Sep 9, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2020 01:52
|
|
|
euphronius posted:If you had a million monkeys type for a million years and they, eventually, come up with “the corrections” by Jonathan Franzen you still could not sell it Well, in this case, if I understand the tweet, the person is selling the monkeys, not the thing they produced, and it’s up to the buyer to let them type for a million years. But yeah, still silly, as from a software standpoint, it’s pretty akin to “I have an extremely lossy compression algorithm but not so lossy that the stuff it’s producing isn’t recognizably Disney IP.”
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2020 01:55
|
|
|
You could def sell the monkeys yes but ... they aren’t worth anything so
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2020 01:57
|
|
|
I mean economic worth I recognize the value of each of the million monkeys as a soul on this earth worthy of love and acceptance
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2020 01:58
|
|
|
They are free monkeys on the land and their typewriters are adorned with a fringe of gold. Checkmate.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2020 02:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 07:29 |
|
|
euphronius posted:Ignore the million years and the lapse of copyright 
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2020 02:01
|
|