they’re not torturing their cows

copyright is immoral

they might claim they’re harmed if the information is distributed for free. I don’t care. that’s not theft.

since the defendant is also a capitalist firm, I can see the similarities, but if someone were to simply be liberating the information, I don’t see that as stealing.

thebadspace has no real rhyme or reason either and lists a lot of folks I think are fine, and also gives (almost) no reason or receipts.

the Lemmy block system works as intended. if you want some other system, use some other service. but being a federated system, you can’t actually stop the data from being visible, or someone from creating a new user and interacting, if your post is public.

stealing others’ work

Reuters still has their analysis. nothing was stolen.

Whether you support IP or not, the AI company is clearly in the wrong here.

they’re both wrong to restrict access. if legal analysis is necessary to understand the law, then restricting access to that analysis, or it’s free dissemination, is also wrong.

I don’t trust that judge’s ability to determine whether they were copied if it wasn’t verbatim. which is what copyright is. to control an idea, you need a patent.

tragic. no one should need to pay to read the law

right. I just thought they’d made the news today or something.

what did PayPal do?

everything I’ve said here is true. but have a nice day

companies that make things that are not consumed lose money and go out of business.

this couldn’t happen if production is caused by consumption. this means that companies that go out of business because the product isn’t consumed are companies that were always operating on the risk of the product might not be consumed. in fact, all companies fit this description. All production is made without a guarantee of return. we can’t say that the return causes it.

Without the consumption the activity would not have happened.

you can’t prove a counterfactual

production happens before purchases and an event in the future cannot cause an event in the past. ipso facto, consumption cannot be the cause of production.

dairy cattle live about 5 years, and then become beef, but a beef operation doesn’t keep the animals that long because there’s no point if they can graze them for a year and put em in a lot for 6 months.

I don’t see how it could have caused it. people chose to slash and burn the forest of their own volition. they have full agency in their decisions. if they’d have asked me, I would have said “don’t do that”. I can’t possibly be responsible for their choices

There is absolutely no way the level of meat, cheese, and eggs could be supported on animals just eating and using land in a natural state though.

ok. whether I eat it though, or not, won’t change whether the industry grows or shrinks.

I have seen one year grazine and few years in the feed lot.

it’s only a few months on a feedlot. beef cattle don’t usually live more than 18 months