Welcome. I am Scott Lesowitz. I am a professional attorney and extremely amateur musician. I graduated from Harvard Law School in 2007. On this channel, I upload videos where I discuss issues involving music, Copyright, and super fun awesomeness. I try to provide concise, understandable legal commentary with some laughs mixed in. If you like this channel and are also interested in sports-related videos, check out my first channel: Law & Laughs, @lawlaughs
Пікірлер
Most companies, particularly those who rely almost entirely on computers and software, have unshakable faith in the stuff, Lord knows why. These companies NEVER want to hire expensive, unreliable human beings who need money, space, food, water and so on, when they can rely on The Great God algorithm. Humans can exercise judgement (Heaven forfend we allow employees to do that!) but algorithms are inherently flawed and stupid and totally incapable of applying common sense.
Thanks for featuring Fil Henley's analysis videos in your video. I've been watching his analysis videos for a little over 4 years. Because I'm also a musician and songwriter, Fil reminds me of what I've learned and teaches me new things, the latter more recently being about auto tune, pitch correction, and fair use. I myself am considering to record my own music compositions but don't know too much about the recording aspect. Anyway, thanks again for your feature!
My pleasure. Thank you for commenting. And yes, videos like Fil’s are very important and need to be protected.
Another lawyer who doesn't know copyright law. Color me shocked.
Anything in particular you think I got wrong?
@@LawLaughsMusic Music falls under exclusive rights 17USC106(a), not fair use. The only rights anyone has with music are the ones the copyright holder allows. There are no exceptions for commentary, criticism, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or anything else. It's why Don Henley can be the way he is about the Eagles music. Just because a channel like Rick Beato's has millions of subscribers does not mean he is excluded from copyright law. We may not like the law but it is what it is. You cannot even parody music without permission. Ask Weird Al Yankovic.
I hope you're referring to the law of England and Wales, since that's the jurisdiction that Phil is operating in.
So for copyright purposes on KZread American law matters most because KZread is in America and a lot of the copyright owners and administrators are in America. That said, while I’m not an expert on British copyright law, my understanding is Fil would be protected by fair dealings under British law.
The biggest problem is that most views for most videos come very shortly after release. When the video is demonetized rather than claimed, that money is gone and KZread isn't required to make the creator financially whole. I think they need a verification system where once artists get a certain size they get the benefit of the doubt until it is reviewed. KZread can still hold the money in escrow in the meantime until it's resolved. The other option would be for KZread to repromote the videos after ads have been restored.
Thanks for commenting. If a creator disputes a content ID claim within five days, Google escrows the ad money until the dispute is resolved. So if the copyright owner winds up giving up, I believe the content creator gets all the ad money. See support.google.com/youtube/answer/7000961?hl=en#:~:text=You%20can%20dispute%20a%20Content,date%20the%20dispute%20is%20made.
I'm a judgement proof philosopher and theologian who's religious beliefs are violated by copyright laws and I'm about to start up a channel... things are about to get interesting.
Keep us updated. :-)
Quite frankly, it seems to me that yt constantly violates its own standards and imposes penalties on its creators that inflict substantial harm on creators as well as consumers. I'm a danged house painter. I wish some lawyer(s) would get them for us. (With us)?
I get the frustration. Thanks for commenting!
Algorithms still have large margins or error, but the users of algorithms don't care.
Copyright is a freakin mess. whether it is a musician covering another's song or an artist creating things based on another's work. All of which is perfectly fine as long as the artist is not claiming their work "IS" the original FROM the original artist. Attribution should be enough! I should be able to create my own story in the Harry Potter universe. And as long I make clear this is not an AUTHORIZED work, there should be no copyright claim.
I disagree that attribution should be enough. While I'm not too worried about, say, Taylor Swift losing a few dollars because someone else watched a cover of her song a few times, imagine if it was going the other direction. Imagine someone who is a songwriter... as in that is how they try to make their living... not as a performer, but by writing songs for other people to sing. To get their work out there they make some scratch recordings of their song, and Taylor sees it and decides she's going to make her own version. Sure, she mentions at the bottom of the video that someone else wrote it, but the way you are describing it she wouldn't have to pay that person. I personally would like to see copyright last for a shorter time (originally in the U.S. it was 14 years, now it's life plus 99, which is ridiculous... I have a big complicated idea for a better system but I won't bore you with that... but not everyone who creates makes money at it and just getting credit isn't enough, especially for smaller artists. As for 'inspired by' works... it depends on how closely inspired it is. I actually write some songs (used to have a band). I've got a song that is inspired by Charlie Daniels "Devil Went Down to Georgia", all the words are different, and the story is about a harmonica player (my instrument of choice) and there is a twist at the end (the kid wins a gold harmonica, but the Devil gets the recording rights). If I was recording it commercially, I would, at the very least, check with the copyright holder, even although all that is borrowed is a loose version of the story, and even although that story has been widely parodied... because mine is also music, it's close enough to at least check with a copyright attorney and do research on.
@@nacoran Good points except in your example of a song writer.... that performer would be using a direct copy that was for sale. because let us be honest... if a song writer could ALSO perform the song why would they be selling it to another. The distinction I am making here .... is I should be able to make (And profit) from my derivatives of someones work not USE their work
One thing I will say is that copyright lasts too long. Ridiculous songs and movies from the 1930s are still under copyright.
See Rick Beato.....
Yes, definitely.
I did enjoy the video, thanks! Throwing you some engagement for the algorithm and due recognition of that truly very cute and lovable puppy (around 3:35 for any comment-reader who wants to know).
Thank you!!! I think this is the first comment on my puppy!
ScrewTube is RIDICULOUS. They often block comments that speak the truth, even when offensive terms ore not used.
Thanks for commenting
Nobody gets "blocked" for copyright stuff. You lose your monetization for the vid. I refuse to monetize, and use any music I want. I just get "copyright claim" on my homepage, so I don't give a damn...the video is still public and available. Thousands of people upload cover songs...good or bad. If they were blocked for any of the pinned reasons, we'd never see ANY cover songs by guitarists. I know...I've uploaded guitar stuff.
A lot of copyright owners don’t block. A lot even have agreements with KZread. But some do block.
Sorry, but you are wrong. Some copyright owners do block (and some even do a copyright strike on the channel). Most of them only claim the video for monetization, but some ask for global or regional block or even a strike.
Lol, oh you've "uploaded some guitar stuff" eh? Yeah Fil has uploaded hundreds of "guitar stuff" videos and some of them have been blocked, and your little experiences are just yours. It sounds like you're just kinda 'nobody' so the copyright people aren't interested. Not exactly something to brag about.
00:21 OK I'm gone. Bye.
Dang, I loved the who’s on first joke, but apparently i was wrong about putting that in at all or at least early because I had a decent amount of attrition at that mark.
I think we are witnessing another instance of the downside of algorithms making decisions for humans. Algorithms are binary - yes or no. There is no nuance. Sort of like our political differences.
The system as is just looks for the use of copyrighted material and flags it without considering fair use. The assumption is that if it’s fair use, the content creator will dispute the claim, and then the copyright owner will decide whether there is fair use or not. Then if the content creator disputes again, it raises to the legal process in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). And that process is a game of chicken over who is willing to litigate, and sometimes, but rarely, ends with a court fight. But no neutral human gets involved at any point unless the case gets to court. So perhaps it would be better if an algorithm could flag BS copyright claims where there is clearly fair use. KZread would still have to follow the DMCA to keep its immunity to copyright infringement lawsuits. But it could implement disincentives for abuse.
I'm a retired orchestral musician who occupies his time singing and playing the ukulele. If I get something good enough, I often upload it to KZread. Most of the songs are copyrighted. Only a small percentage of those get flagged during the upload process. And with all of the flagged songs there has been a notice that "the copyright holder allows the use of this content on KZread." It’s a convenient solution to a previously thorny issue. So I write a little thank you to the copyright holder in the description and publish. I've never been warned to refrain from publishing. Am I just lucky? A few times a copyright claim has been made on something I know for a fact to be public domain, which is annoying. I've disputed those a couple of times just out of principle, although it doesn't really make any difference to me because my channel isn't monetized. I'm surprised that more copyright administrators don't take the trouble to do whatever they need to to get the ad money, although in my case, it wouldn’t usually amount to much at all. I don't get a lot of views. Is it a difficult process or something?
That’s awesome not everyone is a pig.
Why is the music industry so hair-trigger on copyright claims? This isn't just a YT issue. I'm a writer and I can't even use so much as a single line of song lyrice (say, as something a character is listening to) without risking my book drawing a C&D from some industry lawyer, even when I could make a good case for fair use.
Because it's outsourced. There are copyright mills operating out of murky locations filing takedowns en masse, they don't care if it's real, or if it sticks, they get paid either way.
I agree, it’s a big problem. And yes, once people start getting paid to find and uproot copyright violations, they are going to justify their employment.
@@GregPrice-ep2dk I'm facing the same issue. I have a book project outlined based on a song. There's no use of the lyrics, but just the premise. I'm in two minds whether to make a formal approach or if doing that draws attention to it. I use the song title which, as far as I know, cannot be copyrighted, as the book title. As an example, if you wanted to write a book called Norwegian Wood, I doubt that could be pulled as a Beatles copyright.
Google is blocking because of CYA. Google isn't the government. They can do what ever they want on their platform.
Well in terms of actual takedown requests under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), they have to follow the procedures to ensure they can’t be sued for copyright infringement for hosting content from others that is infringing.
KZread has gotten to big and to corrupt, and very heavy handed unless your one of the few giant content creators out there, and even then they get issues from KZread all the time as well. KZread only cares for paid content now, such as videos from major studios or news organizations. Those studios and news organizations can upload videos and the most users would get slapped with content guidelines violations and get a strike over, yet they do it with no issue, and no those videos are not hidden behind a paywall and anyone can view them. KZread removed the You from everything about their site except the name. There is a reason People are leaving in droves and content creators are finding alternative platforms now. This heavy handed censorship, not just copyright claim crap but actual censorship where people can't talk about serious topics without censoring words with what I call baby talk. like changing "s****ide" to "self del*te or "de**h" to unal*ve, even when reporting news stories, unless you are CNN or MSNBC then you can say those words all day long in your videos with no issues. You even have to censor yourself when posting on the comments to avoid your post being deleted. KZread is anything but user friendly these days and has become a far cry from what it started out originally as and strayed far from its original mission statment. KZread is now CorporateTube and no better the just another cable company. The reason KZread is getting heavy with the ads and at war with adblockers is due to them bleeding money from people who are leaving the platform. This is also the main reason they keep pushing KZread Premium so hard! When the site is no longer user friendly enough, people will move elsewhere, it's the same reason people pirate content. And don't get me started on their job of a dispute resolution system that no actual employee at KZread ever looks at as the system is 100% automated. The only way to get ahold of KZread to fix issues is though a separate company aka "X" or "Twitter" which is a terrible way to manage user disputes. Rant over.
Thanks for the comment and your perspective.
Really Helpful - I watch Phil's videos and this perspective is very interesting. I got a copyright claim on one of mine - from Sony. Did I want to dispute it? Yes - I wrote it, played it and recorded it. They removed the claim,
Awesome, and thanks for the comment
Google isn’t run by humans.
In this regard they don’t even pretend.
Good video and i appreciate you posting it. I would recommend Rick Beato's video on copyrights as well - kzread.info/dash/bejne/d2mgu8F9krjZn84.html He did a few of them, which are all really good.
Thanks! Yes I’m due for a Rick Beato reaction video.
The system is just broken.. I had entire videos claimed of me making modular patches.. Where I actually walk people through my creative choices and how to go about making a patch.. and none of the note material used was borrowed from existing material... The whole copyright law needs to be revised to better reflect the current landscape...
That sucks. Did you dispute the claims?
@@LawLaughsMusic No, I didn't.. I don't have the means to get a lawyer.. And I was afraid that they might find a reason, and I would lose my channel... I just took the vids down..
Very informative. What interests me most about not only Fil's videos but also hundreds of others which are similar to some of his, is where an original clip is used to enable a guitar tutor to demonstrate how to play a particular riff. This method, in Fil's case, appears to have breached the you tube copyright threshold according to a video which he featured 8 days ago. The sole purpose of showing a clip is therefore , in these circumstances, to show you how to play the guitar. Surely that must count as fair use.
Correct, almost assuredly fair use. It’s not that the video broke KZread’s rules. But KZread doesn’t get involved in deciding fair use.
I guarantee that Rick’s videos generate revenue to the copyright holders, because many of the songs and albums are not know by a huge number of people. I bet many new fans are generated by such videos. It’s free advertising for those artists!
I agree. Thanks for commenting.
Copyright is whatever the best paid lawyer in the court says it is. All of Fil's videos are, as far as I can see, the very definition of fair use for analysis and criticism. But so what? He can't afford to pay a lawyer so he has to stick to KZread's definition of fair use which is NOT in any way based on law or statutes but is in fact the result of negotiated agreements between Google's lawyers and the mafia which runs the music industry. Part of that agreement is that each side will protect the agreement by suing any third party into the ground if they violate the terms agreed. This is not a discussion about "the law" - this is a discussion about extortion and protection rackets.
Yes, a big problem with the way the system plays out is that the threat of litigation is much riskier for the content creators than the copyright owners.
I watched Fil's video. He showed on his video that Google flagged the sections - which they suggested he remove - via the rectangular boxes which appear on screen along the RED play bar. However, when Fil played through three days ago those rectangular boxes there was no copyright music within those boxes, so clearly the algorithm is having difficulty discerning between a normal played guitar, playing various techniques or scales from music which may contain some shredding which sounds very similar. Google needs to lift their game with their AI analysis. Having said that, Google often banners videos which state: "climate change is due to human activity" and yet google's own AI requirements have boosted its carbon footprint by 50%. - but this is another argument for another day.
I assume what happened is that if he didn’t play any of the melody of the song, it wouldn’t have been flagged. But once it was flagged the algorithm blocked too big of a section. But if Fil disputes the automated claim, the copyright owner/administrator would have to manually decide to reinstate the claim. As of now, there was no human involvement.
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!
Has the staute of limitations run out on all the Led Zeppelin theft? Please let us know would ya?
So the statute of limitations for copyright is three years. But basically what that means for songs is that you can only go back three years for damages. But you can usually sue well past three years after the initial release of the infringing song.
Dude, great information. However, would you perhaps be in the market for a video editor? You have som, oh, questionable cuts. :-)
Thank you! Yeah, editing is not my strength. One day maybe I can work with an editor. Although in editing the videos I tend to make decisions about what to include and cut completely. At least I think the photographer lamp and microphone I bought work pretty well.
@@LawLaughsMusic I agree about the lamp and microphone. People so often get the lighting wrong. And to be fair (about the editing), I am not a fan of jump cuts, even when well done.
Yeah, i find jump cuts jarring. I used to make videos where I would try using zoom and other things to mask over the cut, but I got negative comments about that too, including from my wife. Any suggestions?
@@LawLaughsMusic IMHO an alternative is to have rehearsed the script and tape it like a live performance. Since it won't actually be "live", you can do as many takes as necessary. Sure, it is more work, but you might be happier with the results.
Kind of ironic since Microsoft came out and argued that it regards scraping copyright material from the internet en bloc to be reconstituted as some kind of pale imitation of the original work as 'fair use' 🤔
And Google relies on that kind of logic with Bard I assume.
The greatest absurdity is that the original artists (rightly) profit from their works becoming part of the zeitgeist. And the zeitgeist includes imitation, discussion, analysis, excerpting, etc. To try to keep this from happening by denying fair use is absurd and deeply ignorant.
Great comment.
@@LawLaughsMusic I agree! ;-) As a creative myself, I’d love to have something in the Zeitgeist! I don’t even especially like Fil’s videos - too much talking and not enough music, which makes it even more ridiculous for KZread to have blocked him.
@@LawLaughsMusic What is even more absurd is that Google, via KZread, keeps posting banners stating: "climate change is a result of human activity". Whether this statement is true or false is neither here nor there for this discussion, however Google's own AI activity which analyses all the uploaded KZread clips -and in this case we're talking about all the music - has in FACT increased Google's own carbon footprint by 50% in the last five years. So it's absurd and hypocritical of Google to run the AI analysis of KZread clips prior to publication when in reality Google makes enough money through all its other avenues. Google should allow all KZread videos to be published, under "fair use" and only withdrawn them when the copyright owner makes a claim. This would reduce the Google's carbon footprint and stop a lot of the issues that seem to be increasingly posed by content creators!
KZread is going *ROGUE* of late. Quite apart from trying to block a video because someone demonstrates guitar riffs in isolation, KZread is forcing viewers to put up with unwelcome advertising by banning Ad-Blocker technology. Ad-Blockers not only block ads, they *ALSO* protect, in many cases, the privacy of the user(viewer). Many viewers are also content contributors, and it is these content contributors that KZread is *100% Reliant upon* for its content. KZread actually *"biting the hand that feeds it!"*
Interesting, so you think if a user submits enough content or gets enough views or subscribers they should get to go ad free?
@@LawLaughsMusic That's not at all what I'm saying! I'm saying that viewers of KZread are, in about 90-odd percent of instances, also contributing content creators, whether they make one, or a hundred videos. KZread is *100% reliant* on several contributing content creators, and without them, KZread would have *NOTHING* to offer. So KZread should *BACK OFF* and allow viewers to watch content *WITHOUT THE ANNOYING INTRUSION OF ADS!* KZread is *NOT* a free-to-air broadcaster, it comes to us via the most *PRIVATE* of means, *OUR PERSONAL COMPUTERS!* Yes, there are "smart TVs" that can show KZread, but it comes to us *PRIMARILY* by computer, swhich makes the ads *ALL THE MORE INTRUSIVE AND UNWELCOME!*
KZread is 100% reliant on c9ntent creators publishing videos on KZread. Those content creators and you, the viewer, are reliant on KZread having a profitable business model - mostly thru ad revenue - to provide service. The ad revenue is necessary to pay those content creators, to keep them producing content. The ad revenue is necessary to pay for the infrastructure to host vast libraries of videos for you to watch. The ad revenue is necessary to pay to deliver those videos to the viewer, because accessing those videos costs time, power, amd bandwidth. Much like TV, you had to suffer advertisements along with a broadcast, or pay upfront in a subscription (remember cable?). Internet companies are no different fferent, and not free: you pay with your pocketbook or your time.
@@LawLaughsMusic personally i get YT trying to block ppl circumventing ads, however they are doing it in a way that punishes PAYING users. I have troubles watching as a paid user just because i use ad blocker and VPN for safety. I pay to remove ads, i should be allowed to use whatever outside software i want!
Pi hole. Google it and thank me later 😂
Nice short video and no legalese.
Thank you! Much appreciated.
Thank you for helping Fil out! He’s a stand-up dude and fantastic at what he does.
My pleasure!
So, why did they block the video and not take the ad revenue? (I forgot to include a text box on this in the video and can't add one now.) It appears from Fil's comments that they would have merely demonetized the video (taken the revenue) if he had just played the original audio recording. So why block him for (possibly) playing bits of the song on his guitar? My theory is that the copyright holder chose to set ad sense to demonetize videos that played the recording, but block covers, because of concern of bad covers diminishing the value of the song. (Of course, Fil didn't upload a bad cover, but the computer presumably isn't setup to automatically assess quality.) That's just my speculation. Anyone have a better theory?
I'm puzzled how the great many compilation creators posting one, two, three hour videos of original music, such as 'Sounds of The x0's', 'All the Hits from 1966', don't have them removed. I can't see how they can be monetised, but how are such compilations left on YT for years, with thousands of views, not automatically scrubbed. Yet, I've seem many videos where a content creator such as Techmoan, who reviews all types of media players, has to mute even a few seconds of copyrighted material in order to post the video. He generally has to use a library of bland royalty-free music. It's very odd.
I think the copyright owners are just choosing to demonetize and not block. And I think channels that make those types of videos learn which bands to avoid including.
You can shorten that word: "they would have merely demonized the video " lol.
Since Fil is in England, wouldn't British laws including fair use laws come into play instead of United States laws?
Good question. KZread is an American company and for copyright strikes and DMCA takedowns follow US law. Also, the music companies are mainly in America. That said, my understanding is that Fil would be protected under British law under fair dealings (their version of fair use). So I don’t think it would make a difference.
Thanks for not making this any more dramatic than it needed to be.
Thank you! Appreciate it.
Interesting that the first thing the Fair Use Law protects is criticism.
Actually makes the most sense if you think about it. Copyright owners are unlikely to license their material to people criticizing it.
@@LawLaughsMusic Yes! wingofpeg often points out things that the music industry would rather not be widely known. :)
"Hopefully that was helpful" - Not really, I was hoping to hear why big (and rich) youtubers don't take these "bullys" to court, when everything I've heard from them, from you, etc. indicates they would win. Why not??? That is the big question and it's left hanging.
I think there’s a few reasons. One is that people are risk adverse. Two is that few KZreadrs are multi millionaires and most of those few don’t make music education or commentary videos. Three is that you don’t make much ad money on any one video. So that cuts the incentive to fight in any particular case. But that said, I want to see more people fight and be less risk adverse.
@@LawLaughsMusic I think you'll find that it's "Averse" rather than "Adverse" in this case?
lol, yeah, that’s what I get for responding to messages on my phone
The fact is the copyright system on youtube is broken AF anyway you put it! You have scums like Tech Lead, Lilliee Jean, ishowspeed who use copyright system and DMCAs to Dox, Harass and Bully other creators and youtube needs to fix this.
this is interesting but ends abruptly did it get cut off at the end? look forward to viewing more from this channel
Thank you very much. I think that when editing the video I decided to cut the last part of the video and somehow screwed up the ending in the process.
There's one big thing I really don't understand... and I hope you can shine some light on that... I've seen reaction videos where the songs are played nonstop, or at least in big chunks, without any spoken commentary, and they don't get blocked... In the meantime these educational videos are blocked because Fil is demonstrating guitar technique and not even playing the song itself (his recent David Bowie example). Is there any possible explanation for this? Or is KZread just censoring the most interesting content creators and not even looking at the ones I just described, where you could really not say it is fair use?
Probably the videos playing recorded music that aren’t fair use are being demonetized and the copyright holders have chosen to take the creator’s ad revenue rather than block the video. But some copyright holders choose to block or at least block in certain situations.
@@LawLaughsMusic I see what you mean. That might indeed explain it. Thanks for your reply!
Holy cow you wait to the last few minutes to lie your ass off, and then you send lies in spades. How much did the MAFIA pay you?
If you make a vlog, it's difficult not to speak out what you're talking about.
Thanks for commenting!
I ran into this around August 2022, going into September or so. There is a group of copyright groups that false flagged me on Minecraft videos. I tried contacting one of them since despite filing a dispute, they tagged all seven videos for the same thing. They in turn decided to deny the claim on the first video, and I had to dispute it. Since I'm small I don't have many options, so blasted KZread on twitter. I think I got a human for once, but they refused to remove the obviously false claims. Instead I had to wait them out. For reference, C418 has directly stated the music will never be claimed by him in Minecraft. He does have rules to follow if it's used otherwise. I've since bought some royalty free loops, and put new music in it's place.
That sucks. I made a video back in the day on my original channel re video game reaction videos. But I believe (nobody rely on this since I'm not looking it up and going off memory) that Mojang specifically allows for reaction videos and even the use of the music in the game if it's incidental.
That was true of the original Eula. I'd have to look at the updated one since Microsoft bought it, but I believe it is still true for the old and new music. The difference now is Daniel kept control of his music even after the purchase. He's the only one that can claim it since he never signed it over. The groups I mentioned are known for claiming the music, and don't represent who they claim for. In my case I first contacted the person who did a remix of the music. They had no idea who the claimer was. I'll remove anything that gets claimed after checking the claim. That one specifically I knew was a false claim due to the history of false claims on that music.
Same thing happened recently with Destiny 2 videos... a third party struck (not claimed, actual strikes) these while impersonating Bungie's copyright agency... They also took down things on Bungie's own YT channel..
That helped me understand the process a bit better.
Great, glad I was helpful. Thanks for commenting.
Fil has received copyright claims on himself singing, so I would say the system is just plain broken, because clearly it's fair use to upload yourself singing.
Re Fil's recent video about being blocked, that looks like something really screwy/wrong happened. But generally, if you sing a cover song on KZread, unless there is fair use, the copyright owner can block it/demonetize it.
But why is KZread blocking Pil playing his own music when he's playing examples of how to play guitar? He's not playing any specific tune! He recently uploaded a video about this. The algorithm is preventing him from uploading the original video.
Great question. Without seeing the video that was blocked, I can't say for sure. I think I will make a video discussing this, although it will be more conjecture than I like. But it seems like KZread negligence not to follow up with a reaction on that video.
Excellent, excellent, excellent. A few odd audio cuts but otherwise really helpful info. Loved me a good flow chart.
Thank you very much! Thanks for the feedback re a few odd audio cuts. It's better than having an odd face.
The supreme court, disabled people are not entitled to use tech"AI" to create and still be considered a human input. Because non disabled people using AI =no human input. Because of this, i don't really care about the "protections" people lie and say that they are real when they are clearly not.
TLDR. Protections aren't real, if human rights mattered the supreme court wouldn't have deemed an advanced accessibility tool, removed the human using it.