No, it means he's being judged for his sins.
Japan: We are not a vassal state (no really they say this in an argument with the Japanese Communist Party).
Meanwhile Japan:
Europeans: We are not vassal states.
Also Europeans:
Weird, the few times I've used it I had no problem with my VPN.
So long as copyright is being enforced at the individual level for consumers, large corporations shouldn't be allowed to get away with infringing on it for profit.
Sure, but my conclusion from that isn't "IP law should be enforced on the big corporations too;" it's "IP law should be abolished and also down with capitalism." Why should I want an unjust law to be enforced even more vigorously?
Yeah that's the thing: I don't believe it's wrong to profit from people's content without their permission, because I don't believe they own that content after they share it with humanity and I absolutely don't believe they should get to enforce that "ownership" via state violence. Everyone should get to use anything they want in derivative works, whether for profit or not. The fact that this could plausibly affect people's livelihoods (but IMO wouldn't; if there were significant profits in IP "theft" corporations would already be doing it) is a failure of capitalism and frankly not the reproducer's business.
I mean, a key element of the anti-AI movement is that AI "steals" art, but I fundamentally believe in that art (and ideas) can't be owned and therefore can't be stolen. Ditto for code or what have you.
The data theft is another story, but there's clearly an IP theft angle to anti-AI arguments, as seen in the other person response.
Oh damn. I guess we just can't have nice things.
That's just a good thing overall assuming appropriate accessibility measures.
Context: In Islam people must be identified by their paternal lineage, meaning one's patronym/last name/however their culture identifies paternal ancestry must tie to their father. This is because the Quran says "call them by the names of their fathers" (Quran 33:5), and while the verse was talking about adoption the principle is unanimously interpreted to apply in general.
This gets better the more you look at it.