What the fuck is going on in this thread? Feels like there are a lot of new low-quality accounts recently.
post
Yeah, no. I understand the problems with intellectual property and copyright. Its not an issue at the core of my politics but I'm at least somewhat aware of it. That's not why people like me are pissed off over AI. We're justifiably disgusted that people are pressing a button to create amalgamations of other people's work. Work that, unlike whatever an LLM spits out, has had time, effort and humanity put into it. These people give a middle finger to anyone who creates, helping mega-corps kill the planet while they do it, and have the gall to consider the slop "art".
You're smoking some hard shit if you're coming into a leftist space defending the fascist project that is generative AI lmao
Not when minor creators use it to make a basic living.
This is more of a bad system being incidentally used for a good thing. Using state violence to restrict dissemination of ideas for profit is morally wrong and frankly dystopian. The real issue here is that artists aren't properly rewarded for their contributions to society and people aren't guaranteed a base standard of living despite it being possible to do so. Besides, if the AI debacle is proving anything it's that copyright, like all law in general, doesn't apply to the rich, so I'd bet good money even its supposed benefits of to minor creators are mostly theoretical; I certainly doubt your average minor creator has the resources to take megacorps to court over non-blindingly obvious (and probably even blindingly obvious) IP theft.
Before we talk wide-reaching systemic change, the obvious answer is: The exact same way they do right now? If copying minor creators' art was profitable megacorps would've done it; no way these guys have the money to fight megacorps in court. People pay for art because they want to support creators, not because they're compelled to by state violence. Your point might have held water if piracy wasn't already easy as shit, but it is so nobody is being forced to pay for anything. Also as I said before even "original" content can be made with AI, and while the result is usually inferior the difference in quality likely won't compel someone to pay for it if they don't want to. For the most part, the law only protects the rich.
The patronage model used to be quite popular.
Using a government enforced monopoly to criminalize people sharing art and information is obviously immoral. So pretty much any other option is preferable
Copyright is only a "good idea" in the context of capitalism. Nobody is arguing for going back to feudalism. If everyone had free housing, food and healthcare then art would be an expression of creativity, not a product to be sold.
Do you think those ma and pa artists you're pretending this applies to actually have the funds to drag out copyright disputes in court for years at a time? You have to be wealthy for that. And even if they do end up doing it they can end up bankrupt even if they win, or they can be forced to drop it because they run out of money to keep fighting. The system you are talking about literally favors the wealthy, and it is so disingenuous to pretend otherwise.
Just so you know: the person you're responding to is impersonating OP.
25 mins old account.
Obvious troll is obvious.
This is some shit for brains troll too cowardly to say what they want to say on main so keeping an account exclusively for saying their horrible shitty views.
The left supports Human Rights. Trans Rights are Human Rights.
all 32 comments