But if people know what we’re interested in, then we might have to actually do those things! 😬

True, a lot of it also depends on how ‘lawful access’ is defined. Some arguing it means ‘without breaching TPMs to access’. That would be my reading based on measure 1.2 of the copyright chapter of the general purpose AI Code of Practice

Is the issue that they think there could possibly be value chain liability, maybe?

Commission published a Code of Practice which is more detailed here: ec.europa.eu/newsroom/dae.... Seems to suggest they view it as falling within the TDM exception unless rights are specifically reserved.

From my reading of Article 53(1)(c), it’s for GEN AI providers that place the product on the market. AI providers are defined under Article 3 as those putting the product on the market, so arguably it wouldn’t apply to independent researchers. Just my reading though!

The UN Cybercrime Convention under Article 14 maybe? I think the US is likely to adopt it unless something changes (which wouldn’t surprise me).

‘But how can we profit unless we turn games into services you have to pay monthly for?

Oh absolutely, it’s just the EU wasn’t particularly vocal about it until maybe the past 10-12 years. Also, EU’s commitment to its own values is occasionally pretty shaky.

Yeah, you can see this in various ways during the 2nd Obama Administration, before a clearer divergence in values starts getting more explicit in 2016.

I think a bit like Fukuyama, Angell’s argument was somewhat misunderstood/misrepresented by critics immediately after WWI. Angell never said it couldn’t happen, only that it would be economically ruinous.

Well, quick and easy, sure, if you don’t mind cratering while you do it. It’s like the ‘cheap, fast, good, pick two’ dilemma, except instead of ‘good’ it’s ’no recession’. :D more seriously, in some respects both Brexit and this are motivated by the same perceived sense global injustice, ≠ reality