I’m not sure that’s been extensively tested in courts. The document you referenced below appears to be as-yet not officially published, so I don’t believe it actually qualifies as an official position yet, but the bigger issue is that it’s untested in court.

This thread is a response to an AI court case where the ruling was that training on copy written works is fair use.

https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/us-judge-approves-15-billion-anthropic-copyright-settlement-with-authors-2025-09-25/

Alsup ruled in June that Anthropic made fair use of the authors’ work to train Claude, but found that the company violated their rights by saving more than 7 million pirated books to a “central library” that would not necessarily be used for that purpose

Regardless, you do make good points and I think we agree that the end state is “they shouldn’t be able to do that”. I have concerns that using existing standards that take copying too literally results in some unintended ambiguity, and situations where AI training is incidentally blocked, but so is stuff like “opening a news article on a computer”, which does the same things the copyright office report highlights as infringement.
I think we’d be in a much more agreeable place if we just legally state that a commercial AI tools training isn’t fair use. That lets you have nuance like “search engine? It’s a statistical model, but not generative: allowed. AI agent? Statistical model that’s generating content as opposed to classification or ranking: not allowed”.

It definitely does have the meaning of making an analog signal discrete, and DVDs are digital in that sense.
There’s also the sense of serializing or enumerating something into a format more flexible or amenable to computer manipulation. More briefly: to put it on a computer.

For some things it’s super obvious: a vinyl record has a groove you can see, and you digitize it by sampling the output of the wiggle: analog.
The contents of an SD card are invisible and the only way to observe them is via a computer, where they’re already presented in a flexible format: not analog.

Then you have fuzzy things: a printed picture that was taken with a digital camera. Grab a magnifying glass and you can see that it’s got blocks of quantized color, and isn’t continuous. You digitize the photo by shining light on it and capturing the bounce.
Optical media is a disc with a groove in it that you read by shining a light on it to capture the bounce. Instead of a horizontal wiggle though it’s pits creating an interference pattern with a laser.
It’s digital because it’s quantized information that it stores. It needs to be digitized to work with easily because the format is often read-only or write once. It’s analog because the pits themselves are continuous and the system spends surprising amount of nuance correcting errors from things like fingerprints and dust.

Books are plainly analog, even though they’re composed almost entirely of discrete, quantized units of structured information. Sometimes even with a lookup table and index for faster search!

Magnetic tape stores analog audio by varying the strength of a magnet with the audio signal. It stores digital information by only setting the magnet to specific strengths. Same for VHS or cable Internet.

To make a long ramble short: digitize also means to stick it on a computer, owing to efforts to digitize things often being focused on items that aren’t continuous, like text.

Har har.

Different senses of the word digital. The dvd is digital as in “made discrete and not analog”.

I meant in the sense of “to move off of fixed use physical media and translate to a format more agnostic to storage medium or conducive to transfer and immediate processing”.

More succinctly: to copy something to a storage medium that’s harder to loose under the couch.

Decryption isn’t illegal. Bypassing encryption without a license is illegal. There’s a difference.
When you play a DVD you’re decrypting it using a licensed piece of hardware. Windows and Mac both have dvd playback licences (or they did, it looks like Windows now charges extra). A fair bit of software either comes with a license or technically requires you to buy one.

https://vlc-user-documentation.readthedocs.io/en/latest/support/faq/legalconcerns.html

Specifically the portion on commercial or broadcast usage.

You will need to contact the licensor on how to comply with these licenses. This goes for playing a DVD with VLC for your personal enjoyment ($2.50 one time payment to MPEG LA) as well as for using VLC for streaming a live event in MPEG-4 over the Internet.

Are you telling me you can’t burn DVDs?
How do you think they even make DVDs? Do you think each one is unique or something?

What good is copy protection if all you need to do is hook a tape recorder up to the DVD player?

The system is stupid and ultimately futile. Is it really shocking that such a system produced a weirdly easy to bypass copy protection?

It’s not an impervious technical hurdle, it’s a legal protection. You can legally do it by using software that has the license to do the decryption.

I agree with the conclusion, but that rationale is wrong. First, you can digitize a DVD. Second, it’s not a double standard. You can grab copies of random stuff and jam it in an AI model too.
Our laws are written such that it’s making a copy outside of reasonable use that’s illegal, and AI training only makes a copy incidentally to what they’re doing and then it’s deleted. It’s the same standard that makes viewing a photo on an artists website legal.

It’s not bullshit because they’re breaking the law, but because we need to refine the law to make it clear training an AI model isn’t a reasonable usage anymore than a public broadcast of a DVD is a reasonable use.
Trying to shoehorn it into the existing laws will just create a nightmare of loopholes and complications.

What? That’s not true at all. You can just burn the iso to disc or use software that’s paid the license fee.

It’s stupid bullshit but perfectly possible.

There have been significant protests, but they have not been exactly massive

4/5 of the largest protests in US history have happened since 2025 directly as a response to trumps shit.

Several European countries have had bigger protests recently

Which ones? How big?

USA is so used to violence and abuse of minorities, they don’t even notice, and they think it’s normal

Spoken like someone who’s never actually dealt with anything other than our news filtered through your news.

I acknowledge that there are good Americans too, but they are not the ones in control, and they are the minority.

Considering you’re in Europe, the world experts in imperialism, brutal ethnic suppression, you still wear fucking blackface, you don’t even see the issues with your treatment of migrants as a problem, and a fair number of the protests I found while trying to figure out which one you meant were “anti migrant”, I feel like that’s a bit of a rich sentiment.

You do know that one of the most offensive policies trump has been pursuing is to rollback our citizenship rules to those that are the norm in Europe?

You had a director who actually liked the subject. It’s right there in the interview. Wasn’t a fan as a child, liked it as an adult.

It sounds like you didn’t like the movie, so you’re saying it was because the director lacked something or the writers lacked something relating to “art”, instead of just saying you didn’t like the movie.

All but the most niche movies are about making money. That’s what they are. People can make good movies, but they’re all still fundamentally about money. The entire star trek franchise exists to make money.
The early movies were made as a cash grab to chase after Star wars money. You’ve got the movie director saying the series is boring and being selected because he can make it for cheaper.

It’s fine to not like the movie, but acting like the movie can’t be good because those making it have financial incentives? C’mon.

Are you saying he’s not an actual director? What makes someone an “actual director”?
Why do you think it was a marketing choice to pick him? He wasn’t exactly a major director at the time. He was far from unknown but he didn’t have a lot of movies.

Which Star Trek to you is art and not content? I assume you mean made as a passion and not for commercial purposes?
I feel like that’s just ignorant of how movies are actually made.

Is it content because it’s popular and you don’t like it?

First, you’re assuming you have to love the story or the universe to make a good movie set in that universe.

Second, if you could get paid several tens of millions of dollars to make a movie I’m pretty sure you would, and you’d probably do a hell of a good job catching yourself up.

I’m not sure why you’d say it “doesn’t count”.

Most of the ones like that vent the heat primarily through an area that can be effectively cleaned and has significantly better airflow. So the back radiator is larger but it’s effectively never cleaned and the air exchange volume is the gap between the back of the fridge and the wall.
Venting out the bottom allows exchange with the rest of the room, but does require more work to ensure the air actually flows. Additionally, you can clean the vent with a vacuum, and it’s a lot more likely that will actually happen than someone pulls the fridge forward and wipes the coils with a damp but not wet cloth.

You think I’m archiving?

Friend, I’m wholly in this image, filled with shame, but honest enough to admit it.

The linked sites? Those aren’t the subject of the meme, they’re some of the suppliers for my uncontrolled addiction to reading the first paragraph of something, thinking I might want to reference it later and then hitting download and never, ever returning.

It does go in a folder which is never cleaned though, which remains entirely unorganized.

There’s an advantage to a “reactive body” and a “contemplative body” to have short term advocating for your direct constituents and a mediating push for better longer term results, but not the way we do it.

Giving votes to land is foolish.
Keep the two houses, but apportion senators by population as well.

Oh, I was incredulous because I’ve never even heard something like that online, where people will share some truly out there opinions.

We seem to otherwise agree on stuff.

Your last paragraph kinda highlights my bonus reason for disliking mras. They’ve made it nearly impossible to think of a space where you can discuss mens issues that isn’t at a baseline antifeminism.
Patriarchy hurts men as well as women. Addressing how it hurts men has the opportunity to help prevent future harm, like by helping people figure out a definition of manhood that isn’t everything wrong with modern masculinity, which can be hard if you have next to no examples to show you it’s even possible.
It’s not feminists as allies, it’s feminists talking about a different part of the conversation.
Mras are so toxic that it’s become legitimately difficult to convey “I’m concerned with how society messes up men” without people thinking you’re about to segue into some misogynistic awfulness.

All that to say, blaming feminists for circumcision is a type of delusion so far out there that I have trouble even conceiving how you would do that.

Disagreeing as well as asking for sources because I’ve truly never encountered anything about people being anti-circumcision that’s felt anything beyond “that’s a messed up thing to do to a baby”.

Totally on board with the things you’ve said against mras, with the added note that they also make it harder for people to actually discuss real issues that do effect men in a way that isn’t immediately assumed to be an angry wounded machismo thing. Patriarchy hurts men too, and men have some social issues that it can be helpful for them to seek support on, and the work of shitty mra groups framing that as so closely associated with antifeminism or misogyny actively hurts men by creating an association that caring about or having male specific issues makes someone a misogynistic ass by default.

Reasonable people are feminists, and don’t get hung up on the origin of the word.

I purely mean I have literally never heard anyone blame feminism or any feminist group for circumcision. I think the closest I’ve heard is people arguing against individuals who’re saying female circumcision is worse, and therefore we shouldn’t dilute the conversation by bringing male circumcision up.

rest of the world considers US meat unfit for human consumption

That’s… Not even remotely true. The US is one of the largest food and meat exporters in the world. There’s a few notable cases of differing regulations resulting in trade issues but for the most part those are about local industry trade protection. Like, the US doesn’t forbid washing poultry in the processing plant with a dilute bleach solution, and the EU says you can’t do that. Ignoring that the US primarily uses other things, that the same substance is mandated for use by the EU for certain classes of seafood and vegetable, and that nearly every food service establishment on the planet uses it to clean nearly everything, where it’s mandated for use by the EU, and documented as entirely harmless by their advisory health officials.
But it does result in the EU buying poultry for moderately higher prices from member nations.

Fast food is better outside the US because the chains are less established as options, so they need to try harder.

What? I don’t see that at all. Acknowledging a hypocrisy regarding genital mutilation attitudes doesn’t diminish a recognition of the myriad inequities faced by women.

Nope. Most of those are just people projecting modern knowledge and beliefs onto people from thousands of years ago.

The origin of the pork taboo for example. We connect it to our current knowledge of trichinosis, but we know the actual reason from antiquity.
It has to do with ancient Judaism and a political dispute they had both internally and with the Babylonians. Essentially, the surviving faction of the conflict hated Babylon, and Babylon ate a lot of pork because pigs are easier to maintain in a more urbanized setting. So they had developed the belief that “fuck that, people who eat like those fuckers are also fuckers”. They also decided to use the Babylonians gods as bad guy gods, and give them names like, roughly, the stinky poop god. Aka, baelzebub.

It’s always risky to project modern beliefs and knowledge onto people from so long ago.

They don’t need to read you your rights for a field sobriety test. I believe every state has laws that make consent a condition of the drivers license and establish that the tests aren’t self incrimination.

They should have read you your rights but if they didn’t question you after arrest it’s probably academic, since failure to do so would mean the answers you didn’t give to the questions they didn’t ask were inadmissible.

A dwi doesn’t require alcohol. They could just say you were on “something”. It’s a catchall for not being in a fit state to drive.

Anything anyone says here is pointless. You need to talk to a lawyer.