The ruling explicitly does not allow pirating. It only lets you run ML training on legally acquired media.
They still haven't ruled on copyright infringement from pirating the media used to train, and they haven't ruled on copyright status of outputs (what it takes to be considered transformative).
This is judge Alsup, same guy who ruled in Oracle vs Google
At worst the game might use certificate pinning, in which case you modify the code to insert your own certificate
There's literally tools to arbitrarily set and change Steam achievements
1: SteamOS don't run unnecessary services in the background. (especially stuff like print services and other random shit)
1b: Even regular Linux, which does run a bunch of extra services, still generally has less overhead because it's still being optimized for lighter weight systems, and it idles more efficiently too. Meanwhile Windows doesn't have a good way to tell your printer driver and its corresponding services to shut up when you're gaming.
2: Antivirus programs
3: Drivers, graphics system. This is both a plus and minus, but for performance mostly plus. More efficient driver model, less overhead again. Sometimes the performance comes from lacking features which doesn't get executed fully, though. Sometimes it comes from translating to Vulkan, because DirectX has some more overhead (and in these specific cases you can get the same performance boost on Windows by switching to Vulkan).
Passable cotton candy stick, if you're careful
I run a cryptography forum
Encryption doesn't hide data sizes unless you take extra steps
It's called traffic analysis
And you can't really close them again.
Timing of messages. They can't tell what you send, but can tell when
That lamp model has many hinges
This isn't solarpunk
This case didn't cover the copyright status of outputs. The ruling so far is just about the process of training itself.
IMHO the generative ML companies should be required to build a process tracking the influence of distinct samples on the outputs, and inform users of potential licensing status
Division of liability / licensing responsibility should depend on who contributes what to the prompt / generation. The less it takes for the user to trigger the model to generate an output clearly derived from a protected work, the more liability lies on the model operator. If the user couldn't have known, they shouldn't be liable. If the user deliberately used jailbreaks, etc, the user is clearly liable.
But you get a weird edge case when users unknowingly copy prompts containing jailbreaks, though
https://infosec.pub/comment/16682120