• taanegl@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Uh, yeah, a massive corporation sucking up all intellectual property to milk it is not the own you think it is.

    • Umbrias@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      But this is literally people trying to strengthen copyright and its scope. The corporation is, out of pure convenience, using copyright as it exists currently with the current freedoms applied to artists.

      • taanegl@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Listen, it’s pretty simple. Copyright was made to protect creators on initial introduction to market. In modern times it’s good if an artist has one lifetime, i.e their lifetime of royalties, so that they can at least make a little something - because for the small artist that little something means food on their plate.

        But a company, sitting on a Smaug’s hill worth of intellectual property, “forever less a day”? Now that’s bonkers.

        But you, scraping my artwork to resell for pennies on the dollar via some stock material portal? Can I maybe crawl up your colon with sharp objects and kindling to set up a fire? Pretty please? Oh pretty please!

        Also, if you AI copies my writing style, I will personally find you, rip open your skull AND EAT YOUR BRAINS WITH A SPOON!!! Got it, devboy?

        Won’t be Mr Hotshot with a pointy objects and a fire up you ass, as well as less than half a brain… even though I just took a couple of bites.

        Chew on that one.

        EDIT: the creative writer is doomed, I tells ya! DOOOOOOMED!

        • Umbrias@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          This is remarkably aggressive and assumptive. It also addresses none of my beliefs substantively so not much to really chew on there.

          You let me know if you ever want to chat about the issue, but right now it looks like you just want to vent. Feel free to do that but I’m not going to just be an object of your anger.

          • winky88@startrek.website
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Bleeding hearts rarely do their cause justice (referring to the person you replied to)

          • taanegl@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Actually, I hid all that in the goop - but it went passed ya because you didn’t want to read with your minds eye. You also weren’t showing any sympathy, but false sympathy, because you just wanted to dismiss the person and not their concern. This is called an “as hominem”. You argue the person rather than the points, and they did substantially tell you that it’s a matter of being able to be paid for your labours.

            A little hint: copyright is there to protect creators from over reach, which should be fairly obvious. Both mass consolidation of intellectual property and fuzzing of copyright through AI is also abuse of the very founding principles of copyright.

            But sometimes people just want to dismiss, it becomes easier if someone is upset, cus then your can take the high road about stuff and people will be happy with it…

            Ok, byyyyye~ _

    • Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      AI training isn’t only for mega-corporations. We can already train our own open source models, so we shouldn’t applaud someone trying to erode our rights and let people put up barriers that will keep out all but the ultra-wealthy. We need to be careful not weaken fair use and hand corporations a monopoly of a public technology by making it prohibitively expensive to for regular people to keep developing our own models. Mega corporations already have their own datasets, and the money to buy more. They can also make users sign predatory ToS allowing them exclusive access to user data, effectively selling our own data back to us. Regular people, who could have had access to a corporate-independent tool for creativity, education, entertainment, and social mobility, would instead be left worse off with fewer rights than where they started.