And then put the rest into Apple stock. I told him he was absolutely insane.

He sold about a quarter of it at some point in 2018, but is currently sitting on several million dollars of gain.

Siri is still pretty awful and useless though.

Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose and so on.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/jun/08/martinwainwright

I don’t even know what this means. I don’t want you poking through confidential client files. And this smells so vibe coded how am I meant to trust the security of the files?

Edit:

Oh my god. I just saw this. “ Files that arrive as an experience, using our living templates: a wax-sealed letter, a parcel to unbox, a mixtape that plays, a blueprint that unrolls, a runway collection to unzip. Your logo, colours and type on every one — recipients don’t click a link, they open a delivery.”

Is this a joke?! No one wants to have to sit through so performative AI animation to get a file. This is horrendously tacky sounding. And potentially really painful for someone who just wants to download a file.

https://www.404media.co/elias-thorne-chatbots-llms-chatgpt-l...

The author can’t even get basic facts right.

“When Daft Punk became robots around the turn of the millennium”

Is 1993 really “around the turn of the millennium?

It’s also worth recognising that this is written from an ultra-orthodox, uktra-Conservative Catholic stance, by a Jesuit in the “Jesuit review”.

https://youtu.be/QMlp8BeBJgg

But I’ll try to answer what I think you’re asking.

YouTube is a directly negotiated licence - ie it doesn’t fall under any of the statutory blankets, and is licensed territory by territory. Most rights holders are able to license for multiplied territories and often globally. But if soemthing was not licensed for a particular territory in which you were based you would not be able to watch the music video.

The recording and publishing need to be separately licensed by the record label and publisher(s), with the performance and mechanicals handled differently, and potentially flowing via a CMO or mechanical licensing society. The video will be provided by the record label - and they generally own the copyright in the video as a work for hire. If there are sample in the recording they will have been cleared by the label for both the recording and publishing. If there’s an interpolation of a song that will be negotiated and licensed with the publisher(s) or writers as a derivative work.

YouTube uses Content ID to identify the works being exploited, and uses that to account to rights holders.

Is that what you were asking?

Most people I see out and about are either using face time, or inexplicably speaking in speakerphone and holding the flat, face up, with the bottom of the phone towards to their mouth in a weird awkward way, or they are using headphones, wired or wireless.

Most of the things that were invented after 1710 were pretty trivial. Things like the spinning jenny, the steam engine, water powered weaving, wrought iron, steam locomotion, the electric telegraph, the lightbulb, waterproof fabric, the hydraulic press, the telephone. Imagine what else could have been achieved if copyright didn't incentivise authors and publishers to disseminate knowledge by allowing them to sell books, magazines and news sheets.

One additional point, in response to your comment: public performance licences are for events or venues, not DJs.

So if you are DJing in club, you are covered. Indeed, there are even specific technologies that log what DJs are playing, built into DJ hardware, and report back to collective licensing bodies so that the rights holders in the tracks played and mixed are properly compensated.

However, my point was less about the intricacies of licensing, and more about the ability to play the music to people under a "blanket" licence. There is no equivalent licensing framework for releasing remixes as recordings.