Mugging is not a good example. If the phone is stolen that would typically be covered under the personal property coverage included on most homeowners or renters insurance.
It should be noted that with Visible+ after the $29/mo promotional rate ends in 12 months and it goes to the regular $35/mo you could switch to the annual plan. That's $375/year, equivalent to $31.25/mo if we ignore the time value of money.
Another thing to note about Visible+ is that if you have an Apple Watch with cellular and want to use that with your plan there is absolutely no reason to consider Visible+.
Watch support can be added for $10/mo but that brings the total to the same as their highest level plan, Visible+ Pro, which includes watch support. That plan is $45/mo $450/year ($37.50/mo) and promotional discounts run out.
As far as I was able to tell, Visible+ Pro is the best or very close to the best deal for people who want Apple Watch support in the US and only want one line. You can get lower prices per line on postpaid plans with multiple lines but if you will only have one the postpaid plans are ridiculous (even before you add in watch support).
> For student work I would think it’s reasonable to look for patterns across each student’s work. A single Pangram positive across 10 assignments shouldn’t be enough to bring suspicion upon a student, but when 8 out of 10 of someone’s assignments are coming up as AI it’s time to talk.
People mention Pangram has a low false positive rate, but usually such statistics are over a large population. They tell me that if I check many random works I should get a low number of false positives.
But in your example you aren't checking 10 random works from an assortment of authors. You are checking 10 works from one author.
The example from the teacher suggests that something as simple as a section with 3 bullet points can lead to flagging. When you are checking 10 works from one author all it might take for them to get most of them flagged even if they are 100% human written is for that author to have some style choice, like those 3 bullet point sections, that they just use in much of their writing.
This raises the question of what a teacher should do if they talk to the kid and the kid says it was all human written. Should they do what that teacher did when his own written was falsely flagged and start figuring out what tweaks would get it go pass?
That might help if by doing that you find out that all the 8 flagged items have one simple tweak that clears them up. Then I think you have to give the kid the benefit of the doubt and act is if their style just clashed with the detector.
But if different ones take different tweaks to fix that doesn't really say much, because it seems unlikely a detector would have just a single weakness (like the 3 bullet lists) that is good at false positives.
As I mentioned it is usually error rates on random populations that get quoted at least when I see articles about AI detectors. Have any of the leading checkers published research on the distribution of error rates when checkers are used on multiple works from a single individual?
One answer is it is more expensive compared to most of the rest of the first world countries because it was more expensive compared to them 50 years ago, and over that time the growth rates in health costs have been fairly similar for us and them.
The question then is why was it more expensive then? I've not seen much on that.
There's a protocol, FIDO Credential Exchange Protocol (CXP) which is currently at proposed standard status. It is supported by Apple and Google and some third party password managers (1Password, Bitwarden, and Dashlane). (1Password is kind of annoying though as its CXP export only supports exporting everything. There is no way as far as I can tell to export just a single item yet).
Once 1Password supports proper single export when I make a new passkey I'll store it there and later export it to Apple.
Meanwhile I simply make two passkeys. I've only run into I think two sites that supported passkeys but would not let me make two.
On most sites making a second passkey is as simply as going to your security settings, finding the passkey settings there, hitting the "add another passkey" link, and pointing your phone at the QR code it shows, and then on those phone choosing the password manager that you did not use for the first passkey.
Alsup is an interesting judge. He has handled several important tech cases, such as Oracle v Google, and Waymo v Uber.
He's also a longtime hobbyist programmer working in BASIC, much of it in support of his ham radio hobby. Screenshots of his shortwave propagation prediction program here [1].
The RIAA typically asked for around $2-4 per song to settle without a lawsuit, which would come to a total of a few thousand because they generally only went after people sharing over a thousand songs.
In the couple of few where the party would not agree to a settlement and the RIAA sued, they would pick about 15 of the thousand+ songs to sue over. Statutory damages are a minimum of $750 per infringed work, so the total would now be about 3-5 times what their settlement offer amount had been.
Most parties then got a lawyer, the lawyer told the party that had no chance, and they would then seriously negotiate with the RIAA and get a settlement.
Only a couple would still not settle, went to trial, and did an absolutely terrible job and the judge/jury awarded well above the minimum statutory damages. The RIAA still tried to settle for well below that, but the defendants refused and kept trying to fight and did not have a happy time.
Looks like I had a few memory errors. First I forgot that in the first phase, when they were able to identify people using DMCA subpoenas, they had a used a mix of suing first and offering a settlement first.
Then in the second phase when they lost the ability to identify people that way they switched to filing "John Doe" lawsuits, which then allowed them to get subpoenas to identify who owned the IP address where the uploads came from.
I'd completely forgotten about that. In most cases they offered a settlement once they had a name but still, there was a lawsuit. (If they couldn't get a settlement, or didn't even want to ask for one, they could amend the lawsuit to name the real person and proceed).
> in practice the RIAA offered defendants the option of establishing a “Clean Slate” by destroying all of their illegally acquired files and paying a settlement of approximately $3 per illegal song.
It's basically many pages refuting parent's comments framing of "It's pretty easy to validate that everything they're saying is accurate." given the PDF opening is:
"On September 8, 2003, the recording industry sued 261 American music fans for sharing songs on peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing networks, kicking off an unprecedented legal campaign against its own customers.1 Four years later, the recording industry has filed, settled, or threatened, legal actions against well over 20,000 individuals.2 "
This entire topic is about Anthropic settling for 3k/book.
The parent claimed that the RIAA settled for $2-4 a song, which is true, and corroborated by your link. These were settled prior to legal action. They even had a website p2psettlement.com where you could pay before receiving legal notice.
The parent claimed that when RIAA actually sued, they sought statutory damages on a small subset of the infringed songs. Which is true. The two cases that went to trial involved 24 songs (Thomas-Rasset) and 30 songs (Tenenbaum), out of the thousands each defendant was accused of sharing. The statutory minimum was $750 per work, so a judgment on even a couple dozen songs exceeded the original settlement offer several times over.
The parent claimed that most parties got a lawyer, and would then negotiate with the RIAA. This is also true, most cases settled for under 10,000.
The two notable cases that went to trial were linked in my prior post. In one of them, the judge went so far as to urge Congress to lower the statutory minimum for individual, non-commercial infringers.
So I'm really not understanding what you're refuting. The EFF document you linked doesn't dispute any of these facts, it just critiques the scale and fairness. The parent described accurate mechanics, and the EFF thought it was abusive. These are both true at the same time and entirely different conversations.
There has never been one song that has come anywhere near that over copyright infringement.
For file sharing lawsuits they all ask for "statutory" damages. Those are in the range from $750 to $30000 in the US (but can be lowered to as low as $250 in the case of an "innocent infringer" [1] or raised to as much as $150000 in the case of a "willful infringer" [2]).
These damages are per work infringed, so even if someone were found to be a willful infringer for sharing a song, and the court found their behavior so egregious that it went all the way to $150000, and the person had made and distributed a vast number of copies, it would still only by $150000 because it is not per copy. (Well, it might be per copy in a way...in deciding were to land on the $750-$150000 scale the court may have considered the number of copies).
There have been copyright and copyright adjacent lawsuits over songs that have hit $200 million in the aggregate, but those all involved large collections of songs. Some examples:
• Limp Bizkit sued their record label for $200+ million saying they had concealed that much in royalties that they owed the band.
• There was a $200 million suit by music publishers against Roblox for allowing users to upload and stream commercial compositions without paying the writers.
• There's a massive suit underway I believe against some AI music generation companies.
As far as I know the biggest ever over an individual song was an award of $7.4 million against "Blurred Lines" by Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams over accusations that the infringed Marvin Gaye's "Got to Give it Up". (That was reduced later to $5.3 million plus 50% of future "Blurred Lines" publishing and songwriting royalties).
[1] Someone who did not know they were infringing and had no reason to know. This almost never applies when pirating things you know are commercial recordings.
reply