The less time he spends on the job, the better.

Because food and shelter in Vancouver is a lot more expensive than food and shelter in small town Saskatchewan.

The wealthier Vancouver population will pay more in taxes than they receive in UBI; UBI will be a (slight) drain on their economy.

The poorer Saskatchewan population will be receiving more in UBI than they pay in taxes. UBI will be a (slight) boon to their economy.

Then you should be able to cite a case where this has happened.

What actually happens when you are found with a bunch of pirated material is... Nothing. Because it is not illegal to merely receive an unauthorized copy.

Edit: “ For all three designs, enacting a UBI and paying for it by increasing the federal debt would grow the economy”

Yes, I quoted that in my other comment that sparked your edit.

The above is from the cited paper. There’s zero growth if you fund it through taxes

I also quoted the two paragraphs after your quote, and the paragraph before your quote, all of which discussed tax-funded UBI. I even bolded some text. And yet,

You still missed this:

However, when the model is adapted to include distributional effects, the economy grows, even in the tax-financed scenarios. This occurs because the distributional model incorporates the idea that an extra dollar in the hands of lower income households leads to higher spending. In other words, the households that pay more in taxes than they receive in cash assistance have a low propensity to consume, and those that receive more in assistance than they pay in taxes have a high propensity to consume. Thus, even when the policy is tax- rather than debt-financed, there is an increase in output, employment, prices, and wages.

Let me repeat that again, since you have missed it three times now:

Thus, even when the policy is tax- rather than debt-financed, there is an increase in output, employment, prices, and wages.

Nothing you said about tax-funded UBI is reflected in that report. You have blatantly misrepresented their position.

The GPS almanac is a table of the exact orbital information of every satellite. Every receiver needs a copy of the almanac to understand where the satellites are supposed to be, so that it can determine where it is in relation to those satellites.

When their clocks all shift one minute simultaneously, the almanac isn't updated. Every satellite is 60 seconds away from where the almanac says it should be.

If the satellites were geostationary, receivers would still work, they'd just be off by 0.25 degrees of longitude as the entire constellation would be shifted the same amount. But the GPS constellation consists of satellites in a variety of inclined orbits. Nothing is where the almanac thinks it is, and nothing is where it is supposed to be in relation to anything else.

Parent comment is correct: GPS will immediately fail, and remain down until an updated almanac is published and distributed.

nothing about making/distributing copies or uploading or whatever you think you're talking about

Got it. From the OP article:

Last month, the authors filed an amended complaint which added these BitTorrent-related allegations to their existing claims. The plaintiffs pointed out that BitTorrent users typically upload content to third parties and suggest that Meta did the same here.

The article and conversation is not about the contract law that would apply with licensing. They aren't about the fair use exemption which has a commercial usage factors. The article and conversation are talking about simple copyright law: copying and distribution.

Your very first comment in this thread was completely off topic. I apologize that it's taken me this long to figure out where you're coming from.

AND MY AXE.

Galaxy S Relay

5 line keyboard!

Why does the customer/user matter at all here when they're not party to the lawsuit?

This conversation is about the legality of downloading without uploading.

Anthropic is not accused of downloading without uploading. Anthropic is accused of creating copies and distributing those copies to customers. They are being accused of violating copyright by uploading, not downloading.

The Anthropic lawsuit is completely irrelevant to the issue of "downloading only". Rather than throw out your example entirely, I showed a relationship within your example that actually does relate to the topic under discussion.

• Anthropic is accused of creating and distributing unauthorized copies. (Those are partial copies, rather than complete, but they are still copies, and still infringing.)

• There are entities in your scenario who are receiving those copies, without creating additional copies, or distributing the copies they received. They are, effectively, "downloading only".

So, tell me about those customers: When they ask Anthropic's AI for an unauthorized copy of a copyrighted work, and Anthropic provides them an unauthorized copy of a copyrighted work, is the customer infringing on the copyright?

Fuck meta, this isn't about meta, this is about the legal fact that downloading is not infringement. Just because you don't like this particular downloader does not mean we have to set the precedent that downloading is infringement.

Anthropic was returning substantial parts of the actual work to users. They were creating additional copies of the work. Creating unauthorized copies is infringement.

You would have to argue that the users who received those substantial parts were also infringing on copyright. My point is made when you acknowledge that those users did not infringe by receiving those substantial parts, even if they specifically requested those substantial parts from Anthropic.

when downloading something, you are making a copy.

No, you are not. The uploader is the only entity capable of making the copy. You can't make a copy of something you do not possess.

When I send you a file, two copies come to exist. The copy on my computer, and the copy I created and sent to you. I made the copy, and I distributed it. You simply received it.

The copy you received is, indeed, unauthorized, but the infringing party is me, not you. I am the one who created and distributed the copy.

Receiving an unauthorized copy is not a copyright violation. A bootleg DVD is illegal to sell; it is not illegal to buy or to own.