I can confirm that 500Kbps is not pretty. But when I'm sending screen recordings where text doesn't have to be readable (or isn't present), I try to approach 500K from above.
Do you have an example of a court saying that violating robots.txt violates an existing law?
In Ziff Davis v. OpenAI [1], the District Court for the Southern District of New York found that violating robots.txt does not violate DMCA section 1201(a) (formally 17 U.S. Code § 1201(a), which prohibits circumvention of technological protection measures of copyrighted content [2]).
It's my understanding that robots.txt started as a socially-enforced rule and that it remains legally voluntary.
Imagine the justified backlash if Biden had described the 2024 attempted assassinations of Trump as caused by "Biden derangement syndrome", or if anyone had described the assassination of Charlie Kirk as caused by "censorship derangement syndrome".
When a politically powerful figure says irresponsible and irrational things so openly without a hint of remorse, how much trust can I place in the seemingly responsible ideas that the figure might say on better days? I think Gell-Mann amnesia [1] applies to listeners of influential figures as much as it applies to readers/listeners of media organizations, if not more so.
> Our Reporters Reached Out for Comment. They Were Accused of Stalking and Intimidation.
reply