What plot holes could be adequately explained away with a single shot or line of dialogue?
What plot holes could be adequately explained away with a single shot or line of dialogue?
"We've almost got some of their telecommunications cracked; the front end even runs on a laptop!" The Mac that sunk a thousand ships could have been merely clunky product placement, not a bafflingly stupid tech-on-film moment.
"Senator Amidala is in a coma. Even if she recovers, she will never be the same and may not live long." But no.... George had to have his god-damned funeral scene, even if it demanded Simone Biles levels of mental gymnastics to save Carrie Fisher's most emotionally resonant moment from ROTJ, as well as one of the more intriguing OT lore dumps.
Bonus points if a scene was scripted or filmed and got cut.
You're viewing part of a thread.
People calling you out for being wrong isn't astroturfing. It's not an anti-AI licence and by definition does not restrict use (including AI-related) more than standard automatic copyright.
People calling you out for being wrong isn’t astroturfing.
There's been plenty of astroturfing going on in the last week. Not all comments are, but some are, and they have been repeating daily (can almost set a watch to it). In fact, they've been kind of sloppy and over the top in some cases. Didn't think a Creative Commons license would trigger some astroturfer so badly, but apparently they really fear people using a license with their content/comments.
And as far as calling me out, constantly doing so over and over again, repeating the same points endlessly, is not something that is just 'calling me out for being wrong', that's harassment/bullying. I've heard/talked to the people who disagree with me, so there's no reason for them to repeat themselves to me endlessly and following me around from community to community, on a daily basis. Especially when by them following me they derail conversations in posts I've commented on (unless you want to explain to me how using a Creative Commons license is related to "What plot holes could be adequately explained away with a single shot or line of dialogue?").
The place to discuss this issue is here: https://lemmy.world/post/14942506
It’s not an anti-AI licence and by definition does not restrict use (including AI-related) more than standard automatic copyright.
It talks about non vs commercial usage right in the license, so you are incorrect (and I'm betting not a lawyer also). Also, I got that name from someone else who also uses the license, so at least one other person agrees with me. Finally, it has restrictions in it that are not mentioned in the standard automatic copyright.
Besides all that, WTF is it to you? What business of this is yours? Are you some kind of 'commercial' police making sure commercialism is not slandered or something? Its a weird thing to get hung up on, let alone try to abolish/remove.
By using one of our public licenses, a licensor grants the public permission to use the licensed material under specified terms and conditions. If the licensor’s permission is not necessary for any reason–for example, because of any applicable exception or limitation to copyright–then that use is not regulated by the license. Our licenses grant only permissions under copyright and certain other rights that a licensor has authority to grant.
It says it right there in plain English, it only grants copyright permission where they need your permission anyway. The restrictions are to the additional rights you grant, it does not revoke other parties' already existing rights unless they invoke this licence to use your work. The licence does not restrict commercial use for people not invoking the licence. It's incredibly unlikely anyone "fears" you giving them more rights.
If you keep hearing the same arguments maybe you should consider what they're saying instead of instantly dismissing them as astroturfers for disagreeing with you? Do any of them actually complain about the fact you're licencing your content or are they complaining that you're saying the licence does something it does not do?
As for "what business it is" of mine; this is a public forum. If you're not ready to defend yourself don't spread misinformation.
it does not revoke other parties’ already existing rights unless they invoke this licence to use your work
You left out the part about the commercial usage. But then again, you are not a lawyer.
From the license...
Our licenses grant only permissions under copyright and certain other rights that a licensor has authority to grant.
Listen, we're not going to agree on this. If you want to keep replying about it, I can keep telling you I disagree with you, and we can keep just keep going around in circles, forever.
Or we can just agree to disagree, and move on.
But in either case, I'm going to continue to use the license in my comments/content.
If you’re not ready to defend yourself don’t spread misinformation.
I'm not, and debating/discussing is not the same as being harassed/bullied.
There's already a post in a community where this is being discussed, and there's no reason to derail other posts in other communities.
If you have more to say to me about the subject, say it there...
https://lemmy.world/comment/9850401
Otherwise, Feel. Free. To. Block. Me.
You're entirely missing the point; you are under no obligation to follow the rules for a licence you did not agree to. The CC licence restrictions apply only to those who use that licence to use your work.
I licence a work to Alice for display in one commercial location only. I licence the same work to Bob for display non-commercially, who then displays it in a different location. Charlie has no licence, but reproduces part of the work using fair use doctrine as part of a paid review. Alice's use breaches Bob's licence; Alice did not agree to those terms so is not in breach of copyright. Bob's use breaches Alice's licence; Bob did not agree to those terms so is not in breach of copyright. Charlie's use breaches both licences; Charlie does not need a licence at all so is not in breach of copyright.
you are under no obligation to follow the rules for a licence you did not agree to.
Agree to disagree, and moving on.
What? It's called a licensing agreement for a reason; both parties must agree. It's like any other written contract, if you never agreed to it you are not bound by it's rules. That's simply a fact, choosing to disagree with that is like choosing to disagree that two comes after one. You're just wrong.