• gradual@lemmings.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 hours ago

    A new law could soon allow AI companies to use copyrighted material without permission.

    Good. Copyright and patent laws need to die.

    All the money wasted enforcing them and taken from customers could be better spent on other things.

    Creators will still create, as they always have. We just won’t have millionaire scumbags such as ‘paul mccartney’ living like kings while children starve.

    • SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      28 minutes ago

      Lol everything you create will now be stolen by Disney who will own the only organizations that can reach an audience.

      Thanks for giving them free money forever just so you can spite people with actual talent.

    • Alteon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 hour ago

      This is a terrible take. Sure. There are issues with the system, but these laws protect smaller musicians and inventors from having their ideas stolen and profited upon by larger players.

      Without patent laws, there’s no reason to ever “buyout” a design from an inventor, or for smaller songwriters to ever get paid again. A large company or musician could essentially steal your work and make money off of it, and you would get nothing for all of the time and effort that you put into it.

      • gradual@lemmings.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 hour ago

        Most musicians and inventors never make any significant amounts money off of their music or inventions.

        There is an extremely small pool of creators who make an egregious amount of money off of their creations.

        A large company or musician could essentially steal your work and make money off of it

        They would make less money overall if they did not have copyright and patent laws to help them. It’s sad watching you people go to bat for laws that exist solely to make rich people richer, but it’s why you’re average.

        • Alteon@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          32 minutes ago

          I agree that most creators don’t become wealthy, and yes, there’s plenty of abuse and inequality in how IP laws are applied. But removing those laws wouldn’t solve that - it would just give even more power to the entities with the most money, reach, and legal muscle.

          Without IP protections, smaller inventors and musicians wouldn’t even have the option to negotiate or earn anything off their work. A major label or corporation could just take it, polish it, and release it as their own without any consequences.

          So while the system isn’t perfect, saying it “only exists to make the rich richer” misses the point. The alternative isn’t more equity, it’s no recourse at all for the little guy.

    • mechoman444@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 hour ago

      Lol says the guy that’s probably going to pirate GTA 6.

      And how do you propose people you claim will continue to create be compensated for their work when one of those much bigger corporations you seem to hate simply steal their work and profit off of it?

      • gradual@lemmings.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 hour ago

        Things like rent won’t be so expensive because landlords will have less of an excuse to charge customers more money. So, in essence you’re not even arguing for compensating creators for their work; you’re arguing for compensating their feudal lords.

        when one of those much bigger corporations you seem to hate simply steal their work and profit off of it?

        Corporations will also make less money because there are no copyright and patent laws. Your cognitive dissonance is on full display here.

        This is how we put more money in the hands of the working class. It’'s sad watching you fight tooth and nail against it just as you’ve been conditioned to do.

    • maplebar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      15 hours ago

      Either get rid of copyright for everything and everyone, or don’t.

      But no stupid BULLSHIT exception for AI slop.

  • HighFructoseLowStand@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    16 hours ago

    What is the actual justification for this? Everyone has to pay for this except for AI companies, so AI can continue to develop into a universally regarded negative?

      • mechoman444@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 hour ago

        This is 100% correct. You can downvote this person all you want but their not wrong!

        A painter doesn’t own anything to the estate of Rembrandt because they took inspiration from his paintings.

          • gradual@lemmings.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 hours ago

            Sigh, more censorship.

            We need better communities that let people decide for themselves what they get to see.

            • mechoman444@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 hour ago

              Totally agree. This kind of crap started happening after the great reddit exodus of 23. Shitty reddit mods made their way to lemmy and this is what we get.

              If you wanna see something cool just type the word “trans” into your comment and watch the downvotes come in!

              Keep an eyeball on this comment! You’ll see!

        • loutr@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 hours ago

          That’s just not true, chatgpt & co are hugely popular, which is a big part of the issue.

            • gradual@lemmings.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              1 hour ago

              Analogies are fallacies. All they do is reveal that you can’t argue the merits of the topic at hand, so you need to derail and distract by pivoting to something else.

              Now we need to debate the accuracy of your analogy, which is never 1:1, instead of talking about what we were talking about previously.

              You’re also arguing with the wrong person. You should be talking to the person who argued “AI is a negative because pretty much nobody likes it” instead of the person who says it’s not true that “nobody likes it.”

              You’re literally only looking for an angle to shit on AI so you can fit in with the average idiots.

              AI discussion at this point are litmus tests for who is average that lets other average people do their thinking for them. It really puts into perspective how much popular opinion should be scrutinized.

          • Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 hours ago

            Hugely popular, mostly with a bunch of dorks nobody likes that much.

            People are getting the message now, but when it first came out, there were so many posts about what ChatGPT had to say about the topic, and the posters never seemed to understand why nobody cared.

        • jsomae@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          13 hours ago

          I am aware of a lot of people who are very gung-ho about AI. I don’t know if anybody has actually tried to make a comprehensive survey about people’s disposition toward AI. I wouldn’t expect Lemmy to be representative.

  • deathbird@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    21 hours ago

    I mean honestly this AI era is the time for these absurd anti-piracy penalties to be enforced. Meta downloads libgen? $250,000 per book plus jail time to the person who’s responsible.

    Oh but laws aren’t for the rich and powerful you see!

  • deathbird@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    21 hours ago

    Normal people pirate: one hundred bazillion dollars fine for download The Hangover.

    One hundred bazillion dollars company pirate: special law to say it okay because poor company no can exist without pirate 😞

  • Lovable Sidekick@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    22 hours ago

    Most of us make fun of the stupid everyday masses for supporting laws that only benefit people who are vastly richer than they’ll ever be. But I’m almost guaranteed to get douchevoted for pointing out that the vast majority of musicians never get famous, never get recording contracts, and make their living from day to day playing little gigs wherever they can find them. They don’t materially suffer if AI includes patterns from their creations in its output. But we’re supposed to feel camaraderie with the likes of Paul McCartney and Elton John as if they’re fighting for the little guy. McCartney’s a billionaire and Elton’s more than halfway there - they both own recording companies ffs. If you’re going to do simple meme-brained thinking and put black or white hats on people, at least get the hats right.

    • sunzu2@thebrainbin.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      15 hours ago

      Taylor swift is another one… She really fought them record labels lol

      Good for her but she has no class solidarity with peasants anymore than the rest of owner class.

  • AA5B@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    22 hours ago
    1. There’s a practical concern: how do you prevent ai without preventing people.
    2. What if you want to allow search, and how is that different than ai, legally or in practice?
    3. Does this put Reddit in a new light? Free content to users but charging for the api to do bulk download such as for ai?
  • hissingssid@lemy.lol
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    AI really shows the absurdity of intellectual property as a concept, the very way we learn, every idea we can have, every mental image we can create is the sum of copying and adapting the things we perceive and ideas that have predated our own, you can see this from the earliest forms of art where simple shapes and patterns were transmuted and adapted into increasingly complex ones or through the influence of old innovations into new ones, for example the influence of automatons on weaving looms with punched pegs and their influence on babbage machines and eventually computers. IP is ontological incoherent for this reason you cannot “own” an idea so much as you can own the water of one part of a stream

    • Dimi Fisher@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      21 hours ago

      Absurd obscenities you spew my friend, the fact that an artist take influences from any kind of art form doesn’t mean the end result is not original and it is not intellectual property as that

  • WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 day ago

    They are just illegally selling us off as slaves. That is what is happening. All our fault for not having strong citizen watchdogs, clamping down on this behavior.

    • BlueMagma@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 day ago

      It’s always the people that fear for their assets that want things to stay the same.

      I find it interesting that people who were pro pirating, are now against AI companies using copyrighted materials.

      Personally, I think copyright was a dumb concept and shouldn’t exist. It’s time we get rid of it.

      • overcooked_sap@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 day ago

        Slight difference between little Johny torrrenting the latest movie for personal use and an AI company doing it for commercial gain.

        • BlueMagma@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          22 hours ago

          I’m an advocate of full copyleft mentality : free and open source for any use, including commercial. If I’m sharing my work then anyone can do anything with it, I’m not entirely sure about attribution yet though, probably a remnant of being raised in this society…

      • nova_ad_vitum@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 day ago

        You should tell these companies then, because after pirating all the copyrighted information they will absolutely push for IP protections for AI output.

        • BlueMagma@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          22 hours ago

          Probably, and I’ll denounce and blame them for this just the same. My moral compass is that copyright shouldn’t exist to begin with. I never said AI companies are good or that they should be allowed to do everything, just that the copyright issue is not the problem for me.

      • reksas@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        24 hours ago

        no no, i mean people should actually start utilizing this bullshit. Anyone can start a company and with some technical knowhow you can add somekind of ai crap to it. companies dont have to make profit or anything useful so there is no pressure to do anything with it.

        But if it comes to copyright law not applying to ai companies, why should some rich assholes be only ones exploiting that? It might lead to some additional legal bullshit that excludes this hypotetical kind of ai company, but that would also highlight better that the law benefits only the rich.

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 day ago

      It’s not a Ponzi scheme. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean it’s a scam and even if it was a scam that wouldn’t be the type of scam that it was.

      Absolute worst you could call it is false advertising, because AI does actually work just not very well.

      • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        23 hours ago

        A company that makes negative income every quarter forever, and whose latest edition costs a magnitude more power and is worse than the previous, is worth between $150 Bn and $300 Bn. Many other competing companies equally overvalued.

        These are businesses who are only valuable because people keep investing in them. A Ponzi Scheme.

        • MCasq_qsaCJ_234@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          22 hours ago

          AI has been around for many years, and a lot has happened in that time. It’s had periods of high and low interest, and during its lows, it’s been dubbed AI winter.

          • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            21 hours ago

            And the current AI spring is just old people buying into bullshit marketing and putting all their money in a Ponze Scheme.

            • MCasq_qsaCJ_234@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              20 hours ago

              Throughout history, many things have been spent on useless things, but saying that AI is a Ponze scheme is, I feel, the same as saying that the Apollo program is a Ponze scheme or that government-funded research is another Ponze scheme.

              PS: There were people who were against the Apollo program because they considered it an unnecessary expense, although today the Apollo program is more remembered.

    • Scrollone@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 day ago

      That’s exactly what Meta did, they torrented the full libgen database of books.

      If they can do it, anybody should be able to do it.

      • golden_zealot@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 day ago

        I like how their whole excuse to that was “WE DIDN’T SEED ANY OF IT BACK THOUGH” which arguably makes it even worse lol.

      • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 day ago

        Technically it was never illegal in the US to download copywritten content. It was illegal to distribute them. That was literally Meta’s defence in court: they didn’t seed any downloads.