7 ms·

I just think it’s stealing, and honestly not that cool once you’ve seen it once or twice, and given the ramifications for humanity.

shadowgovt 2y ago
I know of no other type of theft that results in more of something existing in the world. Stealing deprives someone of something; copying data (from training an AI all the way to pedestrian "YoU wOuLdN'T DoWnLoAd a cAr" early-aughts file-sharing) decreases scarcity, it doesn't increase it.
- Velorivox 2y ago
  Identity theft...more of you exist!
  - shadowgovt 2y ago
    Identity theft is the greatest con merchants ever pulled on the public. Turning the responsibility around from "A merchant got scammed because their KYC policy was too thin, because they make more money if they do more business with fewer verifications (until someone comes along and cheats them)" to "when they do get scammed, maybe it can be the fault of the person who was impersonated instead of the scammer" was some brilliant sleight-of-hand. It isn't your responsibility if a bank you've never set foot in gave a bunch of money to someone who isn't you and said they were you... And it never should have been. The moment companies started trying to put that into credit ratings, they should have been barred for discriminatory practices against the unlucky.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- yathaid 2y ago
  >> Stealing deprives someone of something Yes. In this case, it is the artist's sole right to reproduce said images, based on their creative output. >> decreases scarcity, it doesn't increase it What does scarcity have to do with stealing? You can steal bread and reduce food scarcity, but that is still theft.
  - shadowgovt 2y ago
    Your analogy between copyright infringement and bread theft is interesting, given how "stealing bread" has traditionally been used as a shorthand for systemic inequality. Copyright is why Disney can ruin someone for doing something with Goofy they don't like. Yes, it protects smaller, less profitable artists too, but make no mistake: it's a tool of mass control and cultural capture. Perhaps it's time to seriously ask whether copyright is actually doing its job of "promot[ing] the Progress of Science and useful Arts." "...but generally speaking, other nations have thought that these monopolies produce more embarrasment than advantage to society" [Jefferson].
whycome 2y ago
The majority of human creation is like this. All language. Process. Even the US anthem was “stolen”
- pier25 2y ago
  Huge difference is you cannot scale a single human a billion times to industrialize his knowledge.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- GPerson 2y ago
  Since you make no argument to justify your unfounded claim, I’ll simply respond by informing you that these (obviously) are not remotely similar. To claim they are indicates some kind of deep disrespect for your fellow human beings. You could not tell the difference between taking a screen shot of the Mona Lisa and spending a lifetime to perfect the art of painting and then putting years of effort into painting it.
  - shadowgovt 2y ago
    People have also spent lifetimes perfecting the art of painting, putting years of effort in, and then used those talents to... Make sellable copies of the Mona Lisa. Ironically, since copyright has a time limit, that's not even illegal (so long as they do not claim they're original works of da Vinci). Nor is photographing it and selling the photograph. I'm not sure what argument you're making given the observations you've made (other than, perhaps, "There is a big gap between the mechanics of copyright and what it's supposed to accomplish," which I'd agree with).
    - GPerson 2y ago
      I respect those people quite a lot. A lot more than I respect the parasites and frauds filling out the machine learning department.
  - whycome 2y ago

shadowgovt 2y ago

I know of no other type of theft that results in more of something existing in the world. Stealing deprives someone of something; copying data (from training an AI all the way to pedestrian "YoU wOuLdN'T DoWnLoAd a cAr" early-aughts file-sharing) decreases scarcity, it doesn't increase it.

Velorivox 2y ago
Identity theft...more of you exist!
- shadowgovt 2y ago
  Identity theft is the greatest con merchants ever pulled on the public. Turning the responsibility around from "A merchant got scammed because their KYC policy was too thin, because they make more money if they do more business with fewer verifications (until someone comes along and cheats them)" to "when they do get scammed, maybe it can be the fault of the person who was impersonated instead of the scammer" was some brilliant sleight-of-hand. It isn't your responsibility if a bank you've never set foot in gave a bunch of money to someone who isn't you and said they were you... And it never should have been. The moment companies started trying to put that into credit ratings, they should have been barred for discriminatory practices against the unlucky.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
yathaid 2y ago
>> Stealing deprives someone of something Yes. In this case, it is the artist's sole right to reproduce said images, based on their creative output. >> decreases scarcity, it doesn't increase it What does scarcity have to do with stealing? You can steal bread and reduce food scarcity, but that is still theft.
- shadowgovt 2y ago
  Your analogy between copyright infringement and bread theft is interesting, given how "stealing bread" has traditionally been used as a shorthand for systemic inequality. Copyright is why Disney can ruin someone for doing something with Goofy they don't like. Yes, it protects smaller, less profitable artists too, but make no mistake: it's a tool of mass control and cultural capture. Perhaps it's time to seriously ask whether copyright is actually doing its job of "promot[ing] the Progress of Science and useful Arts." "...but generally speaking, other nations have thought that these monopolies produce more embarrasment than advantage to society" [Jefferson].

whycome 2y ago

The majority of human creation is like this. All language. Process. Even the US anthem was “stolen”

pier25 2y ago
Huge difference is you cannot scale a single human a billion times to industrialize his knowledge.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
GPerson 2y ago
Since you make no argument to justify your unfounded claim, I’ll simply respond by informing you that these (obviously) are not remotely similar. To claim they are indicates some kind of deep disrespect for your fellow human beings. You could not tell the difference between taking a screen shot of the Mona Lisa and spending a lifetime to perfect the art of painting and then putting years of effort into painting it.
- shadowgovt 2y ago
  People have also spent lifetimes perfecting the art of painting, putting years of effort in, and then used those talents to... Make sellable copies of the Mona Lisa. Ironically, since copyright has a time limit, that's not even illegal (so long as they do not claim they're original works of da Vinci). Nor is photographing it and selling the photograph. I'm not sure what argument you're making given the observations you've made (other than, perhaps, "There is a big gap between the mechanics of copyright and what it's supposed to accomplish," which I'd agree with).
  - GPerson 2y ago
    I respect those people quite a lot. A lot more than I respect the parasites and frauds filling out the machine learning department.
- whycome 2y ago