This is more akin to empaneling a grand-jury in the USA - it is driven by the prosecutors office and is the first step before review to see if adequate evidence exists to justify a "real" warrant that would lead to arrests.
If they get a warrant - its just like a warrant in the USA, maybe the cops bother looking for you i.e. go to your house / work / last known address but more often they just wait until you get a traffic ticket or something where you happen to interact with them. If you had a warrant from another state, the local cops would need a pretty good reason to bother actually looking for you.
Thinking about this more - the copyright implications become much more interesting once its no longer a recording. Does it could as a private performance if you have headphones on? Is it a public performance if you listen to live TTS through your speakers in public?
Yea, hard to say because the obvious implementation would be to just have it built into phones once the model is potentially portable enough - I see this happening quicker as a more general TTS functionality much like Google is doing with 'subtitles anywhere' aka Live Caption. Paired with translations we maybe pretty close to the universal translator type functionality. I could see end users being able to customize their voice assistant even more or maybe having multiple based on if its talking for you or to you.
Anyways the problem with this is it makes the product 'ai audiobook' basically worthless, why not just buy the eBook and have my personalized translator turn it into an audio book. Now you just have market differentiation between cheap ebook + ai narrator vs expensive + professional narration.
Though narration costs are already pretty cheap - it really does not factor into the cost of publishing an audio book that much unless its really a bottom of the barrel book.
Audible doesn't allow AI narration or much Public Domain stuff at the moment. The only thing keeping it from happening is the markets trying to keep back a flood of crap from over taking / drowning / diluting the more well crafted options and causing the consumers to get really annoyed.
That depends on the state, many states are default open to travel in open land and require posting / signage to block free access. Pretty much all trespassing laws require notice first (of which adequate signage counts as notice) and you are not trespassing until you have been told to leave and don't.
This was why Netflix setup Fast.com to use production servers and use data loads that mimic actual streaming video. Early on in streaming ISPs were throttling Netflix traffic when the household streaming demands started spiking (around 6 at night when every house in America would get home and turn on some streams). I believe there was a whole fight over peering agreements related to that... Speedtest.net was definitely getting gamed and may still be or at least Comcast et al was prioritizing burst traffic because residential customers realized the 'up to' home internet service could be pretty bad if your cable lines was over subscribed.
The FBI also seems to disagree seeing as they arrested Krebs source indicating that there never was any third party hacker, just that individual insider.
There is really just not much point. The most data intensive thing a normal user will run into is 4k streaming and that will work on a 100mbs cat5 fine. No server is going to push that much content to a single user so unless there is P2P it would be pretty hard to saturate that much. Every use case involving 10 GbE is specialized so there is no point adding the cost to consumer hardware...
Except they are effective. They are not as effective as a N95 mask but all scientific data shows they are still effective and reducing transmission rate in a population.