We drove to the compounding pharmacy on Tuesday afternoon. My doctor had prescribed Quadmix as my new boner drug. She said to start with .30 ml. After my shower, I injected the dose. Within ten minutes, I had a real erection (click Here to see it). It wasn’t as hard as I’ve been when really aroused, but it was definitely hard enough for insertion. It felt different. It seemed thicker even though it wasn’t rock hard. It also hurt a little. It was a sort of ache. I don’t know exactly how to describe it, but it was a little uncomfortable.
Best of all, it lasted a long time, a little over two full hours! It slowly softened until it was a little shorter and floppy. It remained thick and half-mast for over two more hours. That was fine. As long as the full erection fades before four hours, all is well. My doctor nailed the dose! We’re going to try it again to be sure that we get similar results. Mrs. Lion sucked me for a long time. It felt great, but I couldn’t get over the top. We’ll try again next time.
I’m so relieved that we finally got results. The Quadmix is more expensive. It is $75 more than Trimix for a 5 ml supply. If I stay at .30 ml, I will get sixteen boners for that money. That comes to $12.50 a boner. That’s not too bad. I can average a little over one dose a week for the 90-day life of the Quadmix. I wonder if we might want to back off to .25 ml and see if the boner is less painful but still hard and long-lasting. I’m very relieved that we have something that works.
a copyright violation?
The Male Chastity Journal is copyrighted. Any use of our posts (or parts of them) without permission is a violation of our copyright. We are always happy to let other bloggers quote us without asking our permission. However, something very new happened that seems a little fishy to me and some others. Google created the giant data store for ChatGPT, the artificial intelligence chatbot. They included the full contents of about million-and-a-half websites. Our blog was one of them. According to a tool supplied to show sources for the AI program, 39,000 tokens were taken from our site. These tokens are blocks of text used in the model.
Does Google have the right to use our website without permission? Does it have the right to go through millions of books, all copyrighted, as well? This is a brand new question. The G4 dataset, that’s the one we are in, is being used for creation of many different models. Google is making money from this dataset.
I suspect that Google’s reasoning is that it is taking in so much data that it isn’t really violating anyone’s copyright since no single source’s content is being directly reproduced. I’ve been thinking about this. Isn’t this case similar to when recording artists take samples from other people’s songs? I’m not sure that’s true. Google will argue that if they had to pay every copyright holder whose content they included, it would be too expensive to develop any AI chat models.
Obviously, no one as small as us can afford to challenge Google and get a legal ruling on the use of our content by AI dataset builders. Maybe we need something like ASCAP that represents songwriters. Content users pay a license fee, and the fees are fairly distributed to the songwriters. Or, perhaps we content creators are supposed to donate our work to advance profit-making AI. At the very least, shouldn’t we get a chance to opt-out if we want? I’m not upset that we are included. I just wish we were asked first.
|
|
Just a quick comment on your AI thoughts… I suspect Google’s position is that since they did not load your site in a single chunk, they can apply “fair use” laws to how they access and use your content.
Do I agree with them using your work without compensating you? I don’t know… archive.org maintains full text copies of web sites at various points in their lifetimes. Of course, they are a non-profit.
I guess the other take on it could be that since you offer it for free use by people (your adoring public, self included), you have also accepted their use as well. Do they provide a way for you to opt out?
I don’t object to Google including me in G4. I do think that they should have notified me. The idea of fair use involves quoting copyrighted material for the purpose of review or use in an educational paper. It is obviously silent on using the material as fodder for AI. I am not sure if anyone will challenge Google. Archive.org may have a takedown policy for sites that owners don’t want to be kept. I will look into it. My point is that just because the material is made available for public consumption doesn’t give people the right to use it in other ways. Our site is available for anyone to read and enjoy. It is not available for reproduction in any form by others.