111–120 of 138 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nina Paley was against copyright, and she's still against copyright. Her position is all artists copy https://ninapaley.com/category/creativity/
Copying is not theft! I do tend to vibe wjth Paley’s views on originality and creativity, though I haven’t kept up with her recently, good reminder!
Most people in my social circles are various flavours of anti-AI, and it drives me crazy how many of them, who were once stridently anti-copyright, are now using copyright as one of the great pillars of AI opposition
People hate it when copyright law is used by corporations to crush people. People hate it when copyright law is ignored by corporations to crush people. This isn't particularly hard to grasp.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I create something, I should get to dictate how it is used not just until I die but for eternity.
Why? What do the rest of us get out of going along with your demand?
In the past, many developers were against copyright law because they saw it as a way for big corps to stifle competition and curb creativity in order to increase their profits. A lot of people right now invoke the violation of the same copyright law because the tide has changed and now companies, by ignoring copyright law, are hurting artists/smaller companies and/or not contributing back or unlawfully closing the co…
Correct, and for some reason America has gotten to an "over legalization" state where every concept has to filter through a legal system in order to be good / bad. I think that's where the matter comes from. Pedantic legalists insist that everyone couch their ideas in a rigid set of legal statutes. "But you just said that an individual should be able to use copyrighted works. Therefore you should have no qualms with…
Copyright infringement use to be the absolute worst crime imaginable if you asked the tech industry, that is until they started doing it themselves at scale and now they are claiming it’s the law that’s broken, it’s crazy.
I think you can replace copyright with whatever the law wants to break Last but not least, generating csam and deep fakes porn on social medias and having to see it called free speech
It claims that people using AI to create works that violate copyright is equivalent to individual artists painting pictures or people writing fan fiction. But that is not at all what is happening.
OpenAI and others are taking money from customers to generate copyrighted works. That's back-letter copyright infringement.
The states that it is unreasonable to go after all the individual customers. That's true, but that's not how copyright law has ever been enforced. If you have a company selling copyrighted works without permission, you go after that company not after their customers.
Most people in my social circles are various flavours of anti-AI, and it drives me crazy how many of them, who were once stridently anti-copyright, are now using copyright as one of the great pillars of AI opposition
Personally I think creatives have an edge as I personally don’t think AI is great at exercising discretion in creativity or design. Which you can see in coding agents their discretion in design is often arbitrary and poor. So I think at least for now that’s still where humans tend to out perform AI
Copyright was founded on similar principles to property rights, it encourages desirable economic by ensuring investment in RnD doesn’t have a free-rider disincentive. Whether it’s the right tool for the job and how enforcement carries out its a another matter. While these laws for property and IP aren’t without issues they do address actual problems.
Personally I would be more open to the idea of open AI flouting copy rights if they weren’t planning on taking a portion of the claim of other peoples creations used via the product while failing to properly compensate the sources of its training data.
Copyright infringement use to be the absolute worst crime imaginable if you asked the tech industry, that is until they started doing it themselves at scale and now they are claiming it’s the law that’s broken, it’s crazy.
> Copyright infringement use to be the absolute worst crime imaginable if you asked the tech industry This is rather the opinion of the copyright-industrial complex, as Spivak implied in his comment ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46874194 ) by referring to Hollywood. The attitude of the tech industry has always been much more vague (example: Google Books), and people from the hacker culture, who often work as…
"We make use of a service already existing without paying for what could be dirt-cheap if it wasn't run by profiteering gluttons, and you call us criminals. We explore... and you call us criminals. We seek after knowledge... and you call us criminals."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If the law was bad, does it make it okay to violate it? Yes.
(I know these days it feels silly to bring this up, but...) That is not how the separation of power is supposed to work. If a law is bad, politics (preferably a democratic process representing the people) replaces the law with a better one. Until the new law comes into effect, everyone is supposed to abide by the old law, even if it's bad.