TWeaK

So where does that say I'm wrong?

I said fair use covers news, education, research, criticism, or comment.

for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research

Then I said the next thing considered is whether it is commercial.

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include— (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes

I didn't cover everything in the law, I just covered the relevant points in a way that could be easily understood and related to the subject at hand.

My point is that the copying AI does isn't really research, but even if it were considered research it is absolutely commercial and thus should not have a fair use exemption.

That is exactly how fair use works. Look up the legislation and quote where it says I'm wrong.

A version of the game stripped of Portal IP would still need to be done using Nintendo's libraries, as the whole point of this project is that it worsk on the Nintendo 64.

Yes exactly. There is room for Canadian businesses to profit, and for Canadian soceity to profit through tax income, with no implication to the Canadian public health service - all the while still providing far cheaper products to the US market.

However this would require extremely tight regulation of the drug production market, such that they can't increase prices in Canada or prioritise selling to the US.

Fair use covers research, but creating a training database for your commercial product is distinctly different from research. They're not publishing scientific papers, along with their data, which others can verify; they are developing a commercial product for profit. Even compared to traditional R&D this is markedly different, as they aren't building a prototype - the test version will eventually become the finished product.

The way fair use works is that a judge first decides whether it fits into one of the categories - news, education, research, criticism, or comment. This does not really fit into the category of "research", because it isn't research, it's the final product in an interim stage. However, even if it were considered research, the next step in fair use is the nature, in particular whether it is commercial. AI is highly commercial.

AI should not even be classified in a fair use category, but even if it were, it should not be granted any exemption because of how commercial it is.

They use other peoples' work to profit. They should pay for it.

Facebook steals the data of individuals. They should pay for that, too. We don't exchange our data for access to their website (or for access to some 3rd party Facebook pays to put a pixel on), the website is provided free of charge, and they try and shoehorn another transaction into the fine print of the terms and conditions where the user gives up their data free of charge. It is not proportionate, and the user's data is taken without proper consideration (ie payment, in terms of the core principles of contract law).

Frankly, it is unsurprising that an entity like Facebook, which so egregiously breaks the law and abuses the rights of every human being who uses the interent, would try to abuse content creators in such a fashion. Their abuse needs to be stopped, in all forms, and they should be made to pay for all of it.

Canada should definitely prioritise its own manufacturing, but I'd say banning goes too far. It's possible to control exports without diminishing domestic supplies.

But this politican stopped working for the greedy pharmaceuticals and is working for the ones that want to undercut them.

So what, are we now trying to argue that broken clocks are always wrong?

Again, I ask, what's the point of a YouTube alternative if you're still connecting to Google?

I'm all for driving adoption of alternatives, and I'm not a federation absolutist. My issue here is purely that this site has a lot of scummy connections that it should not have. Why does it include Facebook cookies??

You won't see a game advertised as "from that developer who made that thing", rather the dev's employers will see that through their job application.

There's a long history of modders being hired for things. CounterStrike was a mod to Half Life; Valve hired the modders to help make Source. Desert Combat was a mod to BattleField 1942; DICE hired the modders to help make BF2. Any coding project that someone participates in can be used to get a job.

Making indie games is only half the battle. Indie games often don't have the polish that comes from experienced coders - indie games tend to succeed on their ideas, in spite of a lack of technical expertise.