> Precedent is pretty clear:

What cases are you citing when you say this?

brainwad 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Bartz v Anthropic. Though the plaintiffs did get something, it was because of the piracy to the original works (competing against the legal market for the books), not the use of them to train the LLM.

▲

lesuorac 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Bartz is an author though.

Is X claiming ownership of the posts people make because pretty much every single social media site doesn't so they have section 230 protection.

▲

brainwad 3 hours ago | parent [-]

They can just round up some friendly users and sue under their names. Starting with their own corporate accounts?

	▲	lesuorac 7 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		That would definitely limit damages to strictly those accounts. I'm not even sure he can use his own account as one of them. The SEC might be pretty friendly to him but I'm not sure that limiting access to a location where material information about Tesla/SpaceX is provided won't become a problem. But I'm not even sure what damages the accounts are suffering as revenue sharing is going away [1]. With Bartz the damage is a loss of sale. With X the damage is $0 per post to the poster. There is a newer Original Content Rewards program [2] but it seems to split revenue from X Premium and presumably people that have X Premium are not using XCancel so the damages would be 0. [1]: https://help.x.com/en/using-x/creator-revenue-sharing [2]: https://help.x.com/en/using-x/original-content-rewards
	▲	bonsai_spool an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		These statements would suggest that the precedent is not, in fact, clear

▲

3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]

▲

immibis2 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Perhaps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warner_Bros._Entertainment_Inc....