4 ms·

If making money is the only reason to create maybe it’s good if they stop.

lewhoo 3y ago
Oh yeah, I forgot artists are spiritual creatures who don't have to eat. It certainly isn't the only reason to create but a necessary condition to actually be a professional artist, no ?
- ImHereToVote 3y ago
  Why don't you just ask for an increase in the allowance from your family trust fund? People have become so lazy nowadays, they can't even be bothered to have a hard talk about their financial estate with their rich grand-papá anymore.
- sjfjsjdjwvwvc 3y ago
  Reread my comment again. If your __only__ motivation is money, you will have a problem. I agree it’s necessary to pay artists - but we don’t need copyright for that! There are many tried and proven alternatives.
  - Loughla 3y ago
    >There are many tried and proven alternatives. Other than patronage, what is there? Also, patronage is garbage, in my opinion. It ensures artists are exclusively either already wealthy, or well connected. It also helps ensure that the wealthy are most often represented in the art created; for some reason this seems like a bad idea to me.
    - ED_Radish 3y ago
      copyright based scarcity is effectively dead for anyone with an Internet connection anyway honestly I think a gratuity model may become dominant with or without any legal changes at this point you'll often see on YouTube patreon revenue equally or dwarfing ads the reliance of the music industry on merch seems similar too* I think people are more willing than you'd think to pay for art simply because they understand it won't exist without money. *(if that sounds like a stretch, consider if in a world devoid of copyright, whether a Walmart printed band shirt for cheap would be equivalent for most purchasers to the same shirt sold by the actual artist )
  - endisneigh 3y ago
    So naive lol. How many independent, unconnected rich artists were born pre and post YouTube for instance?
    - sjfjsjdjwvwvc 3y ago
      No idea - do you know?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
AlienRobot 3y ago
Your unwillingness to pay doesn't give you the right to steal, that only gives you the right to not take the deal and walk away.
- 4bpp 3y ago
  What exactly am I stealing if I don't take the deal, walk away and then enjoy an AI-generated artwork that just so happens to resemble the thing closely instead? I'd think that stealing requires taking something away from someone, regardless of how hard certain industries try to gaslight me into expanding the definition to protect their business model.
  - AlienRobot 3y ago
    Stop trying to gaslight yourself into thinking what you are doing isn't morally wrong. If you do not agree with their business model, don't get involved with their business, at all. Your disagreement doesn't give you the right to exploit flaws in their methods to protect their business. Just like the fact you don't want to pay for something doesn't grant you the right to exploit the fact that the laws of physics allow you to just grab something you didn't pay for with your hand and run away with it.
    - danielbln 3y ago
      You still equate copyright infringement with physical theft. They are not the same.
    - 4bpp 3y ago
      In what sense would I be running away with something? The original thing is still there, to the extent you can talk about data being somewhere. I don't think I need to "gaslight myself" into anything; as far as I can tell, making a copy has not ever felt morally wrong to me.
    - stale2002 3y ago
      > Your disagreement doesn't give you the right If I fully believe in the concept of fair use and transformative content, then yes it absolutely is my right to take advantage of generative AI. Fair use is a common concept used in all sorts of media. You don't get to hand wave that away just because generative AI is getting good.

Oh yeah, I forgot artists are spiritual creatures who don't have to eat. It certainly isn't the only reason to create but a necessary condition to actually be a professional artist, no ?

ImHereToVote 3y ago
Why don't you just ask for an increase in the allowance from your family trust fund? People have become so lazy nowadays, they can't even be bothered to have a hard talk about their financial estate with their rich grand-papá anymore.
sjfjsjdjwvwvc 3y ago
Reread my comment again. If your __only__ motivation is money, you will have a problem. I agree it’s necessary to pay artists - but we don’t need copyright for that! There are many tried and proven alternatives.
- Loughla 3y ago
  >There are many tried and proven alternatives. Other than patronage, what is there? Also, patronage is garbage, in my opinion. It ensures artists are exclusively either already wealthy, or well connected. It also helps ensure that the wealthy are most often represented in the art created; for some reason this seems like a bad idea to me.
  - ED_Radish 3y ago
    copyright based scarcity is effectively dead for anyone with an Internet connection anyway honestly I think a gratuity model may become dominant with or without any legal changes at this point you'll often see on YouTube patreon revenue equally or dwarfing ads the reliance of the music industry on merch seems similar too* I think people are more willing than you'd think to pay for art simply because they understand it won't exist without money. *(if that sounds like a stretch, consider if in a world devoid of copyright, whether a Walmart printed band shirt for cheap would be equivalent for most purchasers to the same shirt sold by the actual artist )
- endisneigh 3y ago
  So naive lol. How many independent, unconnected rich artists were born pre and post YouTube for instance?
  - sjfjsjdjwvwvc 3y ago
    No idea - do you know?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

AlienRobot 3y ago

Your unwillingness to pay doesn't give you the right to steal, that only gives you the right to not take the deal and walk away.

4bpp 3y ago
What exactly am I stealing if I don't take the deal, walk away and then enjoy an AI-generated artwork that just so happens to resemble the thing closely instead? I'd think that stealing requires taking something away from someone, regardless of how hard certain industries try to gaslight me into expanding the definition to protect their business model.
- AlienRobot 3y ago
  Stop trying to gaslight yourself into thinking what you are doing isn't morally wrong. If you do not agree with their business model, don't get involved with their business, at all. Your disagreement doesn't give you the right to exploit flaws in their methods to protect their business. Just like the fact you don't want to pay for something doesn't grant you the right to exploit the fact that the laws of physics allow you to just grab something you didn't pay for with your hand and run away with it.
  - danielbln 3y ago
    You still equate copyright infringement with physical theft. They are not the same.
  - 4bpp 3y ago
    In what sense would I be running away with something? The original thing is still there, to the extent you can talk about data being somewhere. I don't think I need to "gaslight myself" into anything; as far as I can tell, making a copy has not ever felt morally wrong to me.
  - stale2002 3y ago
    > Your disagreement doesn't give you the right If I fully believe in the concept of fair use and transformative content, then yes it absolutely is my right to take advantage of generative AI. Fair use is a common concept used in all sorts of media. You don't get to hand wave that away just because generative AI is getting good.