• Deceptichum@kbin.social
      1217·
      10 months ago

      Zero art has been stolen.

      You cannot steal a jpg.

      And protecting copyright is supporting big corporations.

      • HeartyBeast@kbin.social
        113·
        10 months ago

        And protecting copyright is supporting big corporations.

        Apart from - you know, all the photographers, designers, authors and musicians out there.

        • Deceptichum@kbin.social
          82·
          10 months ago

          You mean the ones who routinely come out saying how X corporation stole their work and they received nothing for it?

          The ones where if you try to challenge the corporations hoarding human cultural works you’ll find yourself in a legal battle you can’t afford to enter.

          The amount of times an artist “wins” in the system vs a corporation is laughable. It’s designed to protect you and I, like the rest of the legal system does (it doesn’t).

          • HeartyBeast@kbin.social
            4·
            10 months ago

            You mean the ones who routinely come out saying how X corporation stole their work and they received nothing for it?

            Yes.The ones who routinely use copyright to get some form of payment. I know several people who had their photographs reublished by the Daily Mail and subsequently got payment. It happens. It’s an imperfect system, but still one that allows small artists to make a living.

            he amount of times an artist “wins” in the system vs a corporation is laughable.

            I mean, it really isn’t. It’s the entire backbone of an industry whereby, for example a photographer or illustrator can supply woirk to a magazine on a single use license. It’s how people who supply photo libraries make a living. It’s how small bands have at least some protection.

          • LWD@lemm.eeEnglish
            34·
            10 months ago

            I do like your libertarian line of reasoning. If the law doesn’t work very well, it should be abolished. I’ve seen people say the same thing about the EPA and OSHA.

            • Deceptichum@kbin.social
              42·
              10 months ago

              The difference is, even if it worked properly I would still not be in favour of denying people freedom to use cultural works.

              • LWD@lemm.eeEnglish
                32·
                10 months ago

                Of course you believe corporations are people.

                • Deceptichum@kbin.social
                  23·
                  10 months ago

                  Are you a professional at making shit up?

                  I’m an anarchist, I don’t believe in companies existing at all.

                  • LWD@lemm.eeEnglish
                    32·
                    10 months ago

                    I referred to OpenAI and you shot back “people.”

                    But hey, if a joke finally got you to start reading the stuff I was writing…

      • LWD@lemm.eeEnglish
        85·
        10 months ago

        It’s really weird how so many people have become advocates for abolishing copyright the moment it benefits a giant corporation. No thought, no nuance, just “copyright bad.”

        It would be like somebody shouting about abolishing unions during the Starbucks protests, because police unions exist.

        • cm0002@lemmy.worldEnglish
          101·
          10 months ago

          People have been saying Copyright is BS since at least the 90s when Disney pulled their shenanigans (again) and probably even before that

          • LWD@lemm.eeEnglish
            3·
            10 months ago

            But isn’t it funny that so many of them have emerged when their nuance-free absolutism helps a big corporation and not the people it’s harming?

        • seitanic@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
          6·
          10 months ago

          Copyright is law which is used to prevent free copying of media, while “intellectual property” is a term cooked up by corporate suits to generalize copyright, trademarks, and patents and equate them with property law. Richard Stallman wrote about this.

          It has become fashionable to toss copyright, patents, and trademarks—three separate and different entities involving three separate and different sets of laws—plus a dozen other laws into one pot and call it “intellectual property.” The distorting and confusing term did not become common by accident. Companies that gain from the confusion promoted it. The clearest way out of the confusion is to reject the term entirely.

            • Deceptichum@kbin.social
              51·
              10 months ago

              Because I want the abolishment of all copyright and IP. Why are you fighting against liberating human culture?

              • LWD@lemm.eeEnglish
                32·
                10 months ago

                You’re fighting for them because you don’t want them to have barriers in their corporate growth. Okay.

                IP laws are a last resort in encouraging people to be creative. Remind me, which of us hate creativity?

        • cm0002@lemmy.worldEnglish
          62·
          10 months ago

          Um no, we’re defending actual open AI models, I couldn’t give 2 shits about OpenAI. They have the funding to license things, but that open source model? Trying to compete against big corporations like Microsoft and Google? They don’t.

          You’re actually advocating for the big corporations, what’s going to happen if things go the way you want is the truly open models will die off and big corporations will completely control AI from then on. Is that what you really want?

          • LWD@lemm.eeEnglish
            43·
            10 months ago

            As long as you are willing to admit that you are okay with plagiarists like James Somerton stealing the words of minority authors and large corporations like Marvel stealing the content of small comic artists verbatim and publishing them.

            I’m not sure how that helps anyone, but you seem convicted in your absolutism.

            • cm0002@lemmy.worldEnglish
              32·
              10 months ago

              I fail to see what he or your comment has to do with Generative AI models, which is what we are talking about.

              I don’t think you fully understand how Generative AIs work. The input data is used in a similar, but far more rudimentary way, to learn as humans do. The model itself contains no recognizable original data, just a bunch of numbers, math and weights in an attempt to simulate the neurons and synaptic pathways that our brains form when we learn things.

              Yes, a carefully crafted prompt can get it to spit out a near identical copy of something it was trained on (assuming it had been trained on enough data of the target artist to begin with), but so can humans. In those cases humans have gotten in trouble when attempting to profit off it and therefore in that case justice must be served regardless of if it was AI or human that reproduced it.

              But to use something that was publicly available on the Internet for input is fair game just as any human might look at a sampling of images to nail down a certain style. Humans are just far more efficient at it with far far less needed data

              • LWD@lemm.eeEnglish
                23·
                10 months ago

                So does something become less plagiaristic if the plagiarizer can’t provide attribution?

                And no, AI does not learn, so you cannot compare it to a human. Passing the Chinese room test does not mean you are a native Chinese speaker.

                • cm0002@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  2·
                  10 months ago

                  Not all AIs do, the more “traditional” ones that you’re probably thinking of don’t. The ones that are generating text, images and video, however, are based on Generative Adversarial Networks a type of Deep learning Neural Network and those do learn albeit in a rudimentary fashion compared to humans, but learning none the less.