On most phones/pcs, you have tools to restrict what your kid can or can’t do. I don’t know the specific OS this has happened on, but you can probably limit downloads, timegate specific apps so that they can only play them when you’re around, or maybe even deny camera access to some.

…oh. The article only mentions a cease and desist, I didn’t think they were using DMCA takedowns. So the issue (according to Bambu Labs) is that they’re using “their” code, not that they’re accessing their cloud?

I see. Then wouldn’t suing them over this have worked better than “daring” them to sue for this? Or can they use the AGPL argument to win in court even if the case is related to cloud access?

EDIT: actually, is the case over cloud access? Another commenter said it’s DMCA takedowns, is that what they’re using?

(Premise: I don’t have a 3D Printer, have next to zero experience using one and never heard of this controversy before. I’m just asking out of curiosity)

I’m in favor of people using open-source software to use better the stuff they bought, but putting aside my bias that seems pretty clearly an illegal thing, can someone ELI5 how could they not lose if they’re sued?

What I understood is that Bambu Lab sold those printers advertising cloud access to their proprietary servers through their “official means”, but a lot of people used unofficial open-source software to access it, because it worked better. Then at a certain point, the company disabled access to apps that weren’t their proprietary one, but people kept using them. Which prompted the company to sue.

It’s an ass move to do, but the open-source software wasn’t officially supported even before, right? And now it’s still used to access their company cloud, not a separate one, right?

From my understanding they didn’t remove any functionality that was officially advertised, and people are now using unauthorized software to access the company’s proprietary cloud, did I misunderstand something?

Anti-competitive practices are business or government practices that prevent or reduce competition in a market. Antitrust laws ensure businesses do not engage in competitive practices that harm other, usually smaller, businesses or consumers. These laws are formed to promote healthy competition within a free market by limiting the abuse of monopoly power.

It’s exactly what these words mean.

Oh I love personalization. When I am the one doing it and not an algorithm doing what it “thinks” is better for me.

This is a matter of anti-competitive behavior and market manipulation. And historically, the EU has always been against that (especially if it’s detrimental to them, of course).

They’re in favor of regulation, but definitely not of individual companies handling it.

Link please? Everything I found on that guy’s profile is this post with the same screenshot of the ToS the article has, nothing about the mail or confirmation that it’s not coming.

Being looking around for a while, no outlet seems to have any screenshot or transcript of it. Starting to think it’s just something Twitter randos hallucinated and a couple outlets fell for it, sadly.

I’m “mad” at the journalists because, as far as my searching goes, there is no proof that this email actually exists and it’s only been cited by some randos on Twitter, not even by the outlets that reportedly paid the deposit.

The article itself doesn’t even mention anything from the mail, it’s just excerpts from the ToS change. Nothing that would allude to this “confirmation” the title leads to believe. I’d like to see actual screenshots from this supposed mail if you make a title like that, otherwise it’s just more fuel for the MAGAs to claim everything bad we say about Trump is manufactured lies.

That excerpt is from the updated terms.

The terms say that there is “no binding sale contract”, but there is nothing in the article that “confirms” it’s not being made (it probably isn’t, but there’s still no confirmation).

Well, tbh the article itself lists three outlets that did exactly that (NBC News, 404 Media and Android Authority), so that’s how I would read it before jumping to conclusions.

Yeah, this is just classic clickbait journalism.

I mean, we all know who are we talking about and that the phone doesn’t and will never exist. But the word “confirm” has a meaning, and those updated terms still don’t “confirm” anything.

Did YOU read it? The excerpt you replied to is talked about in the article right in the section about the April change. And if you click the link in that article for revised terms of service you can read it for yourself as well.

Imho a better comparison would be not being allowed to post within the first 24 hours after signing up. Sure it would be annoying once, but not much of a deal in the long term.

The annoyance for more tech-savvy people is not the point, the issue is that it’s blatant railroading.

If a casual user needs to use, let’s say, a browser, they’re completely oblivious to the difference between them, and you tell them “you can choose between Edge or Firefox, but for Firefox you’ll have to wait 24h” it’s logical that they’ll pick Edge. Then they’ll get used to it and never switch.

It’s hindering the competition, basically market manipulation.

I’ll admit I’m not that informed in the field, but did Samsung have any controversies that caused everyone to consider it worse than Chinese-owned companies? The only negative I’m aware of is that their stuff is really overpriced.

To encourage people to use the auto-generated ones and normalizing it.

I mean, I don’t see any other reason for them to remove a previously working format otherwise.

to me this is the same as good hip-hop versus people who just rap random shit over premade hip-hop beats. It’s “art” but its just no high quality

I still don’t think it’s the same, even the guy who rapped random shit over someone else’s beat put MUCH more effort and input into the “song” than the random prompt guy.

The line gets blurry when you talk about stuff like Duchamp’s readymades, which are considered “art” by a reasoning that you could easily apply to the prompt guy song too. Just goes to show how literally everyone has a different definition of “art”, and even a single person’s definition might be contradictory in itself.

One thing I wonder is if you make a recommendation system that generates new music purely based on what previous music you liked (That was also generated by AI) who is the artist? Think like spotify but the AI keeps creating new music based on what you like from it. In the end I feel you are the artist of that song then no? Your recommendations then created whatever final song you listened to.

Ehh… that’s just an indirect commission. For example, the Prince of Wales in 1876 was gifted by the Maharaja of Jaipur some british usage items crafted by the city’s artisans that were specifically made as a gift to him. But the “artist” in this situation is not the prince whose taste was tailored to, nor the Maharaja who commissioned them, it’s still the individual artisans.

In the case of the algorithm-made song, you basically “commissioned” to it a song made for your tastes, and it “gifted” it to you. But it’s still the algorithm who “made” it, not you. And personally, unless you take it and consciously edit/remix it in some way, I wouldn’t label it as “art”. But again, it’s a blurry subject and that’s just my opinion.

All forms of human production carry some artistic value, we simply value things where the production process feels less alienated than others (Carpentry vs factory work)

And we agree on that, I think most people do. What they don’t agree on is what qualifies a “human production”. Or, to which degree does a human have to get involved in a production for that to be considered “human”.

I think there’s a gigantic difference between someone composing a song and writing its lyrics, then pasting it into an AI and having it sing it (basically Vocaloid), and a guy going onto Suno, writing “make me a pop song”, and taking the first output. And they shouldn’t be treated the same way.

I think there’s a place for AI in music, just like sampling, and it has to be regulated, but not straight-up banned (or regulated in a muddy way like “substantially made by AI”).

It doesn’t help that everyone has their own personal opinion on how much AI should be allowed, though, and we’re never gonna reach a solution that everyone agrees on.