3 ms·
>What happens when you subvert copyright law is some guys with guns, in either an overt way or a subtle one That just seems like a sociopathic argument to circ
by ricardo81 3y ago
>What happens when you subvert copyright law is some guys with guns, in either an overt way or a subtle one
That just seems like a sociopathic argument to circumvent perfectly clear laws intended to protect people who expend energy into offering new ideas and also trying to diminish what is already delineated as right and wrong. In the blatant sense.
I'm not sure how your gun analogy funnels along to fair use.
As with anyone who doesn't seem to respect copyright laws, I'd say to them, give me a copy of everything useful you've ever done in your life. Going by the same rule.
- wahnfrieden 3y agoMost copyrights are not held by the people who expended energy into the labor of producing new work, they're held by the employers of that labor. Most people have no practical choice in finding the means for their survival but through wage labor and selling the ownership of what they produce.
- ricardo81 3y agoAnd that's fine, because presumably it's by consent.
- distortedsignal 3y agoThe "gun analogy" is the parent saying the the government (who is supposed to be the only entity able to use force) is supposed to protect IP. You're saying the same thing. You shouldn't say anything to anyone who doesn't respect copyright laws - or, rather, you shouldn't have to. Your tax dollars, and the entity that you authorize to be the one to use force where you live, should be able to say whatever you, as the governed citizen, want to say to the person who doesn't respect copyright.
- ricardo81 3y agoWhat parent? The comment I'm replying to has no parent and the article has no mention of a gun
- distortedsignal 3y agoSorry, I meant the comment you replied to.
- visarga 3y agoAnd if you look at open source it does exactly that. Most AI models are open source/weights. People are giving away some of their best work because they want to cooperate with others to build things. Scientific publications also share knowledge openly. Only private journals are locking up papers, but they are losing ground. At least AI papers are free to read and implement. They share even code, datasets and trained models. I think the ethos of progress is with open culture not closed copyrights.
- ricardo81 3y agoIt may be a good ethos but you can't simply undermine people's life work for your ethos especially when there's laws protecting their life work. Put yourself in their shoes. Maybe you use some AI derivative work for your own life's work and then when you've finally accomplished what you want to do, someone else duplicates it, or uses the majority of your work? What do you expect out of it. If you don't expect to be paid, great - I guess you'll be spending X other hours supporting yourself and possible family. And if you do, you don't expect the hard work of others to be compensated? Rhetorical question.
- visarga 3y agoUse AI to build things for yourself. You get the benefit in those things, it doesn't matter if anyone else copies, as long as you're not selling content.
- ricardo81 3y agoSounds fine to me, just if the AI abides.
- IcyWindows 3y agoTechnology had made people's jobs obsolete for ages.
- ricardo81 3y agoBut there is differences between technological evolution and wholesale taking of other people's intellectual property. You can go to Watt's steam engine or some such. I doubt he'd argue that his engine had intellectual property on the manual labour people did since time immemorial. But yet it did make their jobs obsolete. Maybe some of them died while his patents were still in play. All the same, his invention, his idea, plays by the rules.
- mlsu 3y agoYou can find all the code I've ever written on Github, licensed MIT. I only wish I could do the same for the code I've written for pay. I cannot release that, because people more powerful than me have decided that I don't own it.