5

Copyright requires originality Your infinity hard drive appears to be a machine designed to violate copyright by immediately copying anything presented to it. Damien Riehl and Noah Rubin were creating original melodies. These do not have copyright until they are fixed in a tangible medium. That's what the hard drive is for. This is insurance against them ...


4

No Company A is liable for its own acts and omissions and no one else’s.


2

The Alice-Bob analogy has a gaping hole: Alice has actually produced copyrightable work, and did so before Bob. The Infinity Hard Drive, as you point out, doesn't produce or store anything - your question about having "the Infinity Hard Drive read someone's work to find my original work" makes no sense, as there is no original work that existed before Bob ...


2

You mean this contract that you definitely agreed to? The ones that says: When purchasing a Gig, Buyers are granted all rights for the delivered work, unless otherwise specified by the Seller on their Gig page. Note: some Gigs charge additional payments (through Gig Extras) for Commercial Use License. See our “Ownership” and “Commercial Use License” ...


2

The copyright holder can licence on whatever terms they like A licence that allows use only on Tuesdays in months with a “y” in them is a totally valid licence.


2

A lawyer would simply prove no such device could actually "fix" a representation of every copyrightable work (as we understand physics). If it actually stored every possible copyrightable work, you'd run into storage problems very quickly. Very, very quickly. Let us consider every single possible tweet under the old character restriction, 140 characters. ...


1

Answering questions and publishing them as a work is making a derivative work. Without license, that is breaking Berne Convention and copyright laws.


1

Maybe If the employee can prove (in court) that it’s true the company stole (illegally appropriated) the employee’s IP then they have a very good defence against a defamation suit. However, if they can do that, why doesn’t the employee just bring suit?


1

For question one, no, this is not insider trading. Insider Trading is when a company's stockholder is alerted to bad news about the company's performance and sells his stock prior to the information becoming available to the general public in order to cash out while the stock is great. So this isn't considered insider training cause Zuckerberg used ...


1

It doesn't matter if you kill someone with a meteorite. Murder is murder. Likewise, insider trading is insider trading no matter how you manage to pull it off. There are no exemptions for certain methods.


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible