@Masonicon, it would be helpful to explain what the link is about, maybe a brief explanation for those who are not versed in or good at parsing legalese. It would also help so that people aren't seeing just a blind link with no context, and can make an informed decision to click on it.
-- BK
let me explain: the document is about the latest update of the lawsuit against either deviantart
The gist of the ruling is that the case can proceed. The judge has approved an additional charge against Stability AI of induced copyright infringement, but dismissed claims that it's in breach of the DMCA (lack of specificity in plaintiffs' case), or that DeviantArt broke its own TOS with the DreamUp scraping (on the basis that dA itself did not conduct it). Charges of "unjust enrichment" were dismissed pending revised arguments from the plaintiffs; all other charges are upheld.
Thank you!
-- BK
this reminds me of 2018-2021 Old account hijacks in deviantart
Calling people "dumb" for clicking on the links unknowingly is a bit much, if you ask me. Have they ever thought that some of the victims might have been children who are still learning, or people who are new to the internet? The fact that inactive accounts from users that are no longer on the site even got hijacked seems to imply that it makes no difference if links are clicked or not.
The fact that inactive accounts from users that are no longer on the site even got hijacked seems to imply that it makes no difference if links are clicked or not.
except these links are delivered from deviantart's notes instead of in the DeviantIDs of those hijacked accounts
