5 ms·

Copyright restrictions of digital contents is a vestige of the past. Given today technologies, it is rather obsolete. For those thinking it goes against artist

Copyright restrictions of digital contents is a vestige of the past. Given today technologies, it is rather obsolete. For those thinking it goes against artists, keep in mind that a lot of art today is simply garbage made only for money. If something is made only for money, it is not art, and indeed I can understand why those making it advocate so strongly for copyright restrictions, money being the only thing attached to their art. The digital world, making it extremely easy to access and copy human knowledge, is an achievement of the human mind. Patreons, or an art world evolving alongside society and other jobs, may be one of the possible natural adaptations to this human achievement. Otherwise we're making the same arguments as Luddites. For the unrestricted copyright inclined, there are ways to stay in legality, if such inclinations collide, and they are fruitful. You will find that consuming only public domain content will be a plus, not a privation.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
back2dafucha 1y ago
The rights of ownership do not change because of technology. Technology as we are coming to understand it in its maturity (but immaturity of its practitioners) has come to serve largely only some veiled or unveiled form of thievery. Paper was just as easy to copy as an MP3. And material could be stolen through other means very easily. Wishing away intellectual property rights after you have stolen the entire Internet for profit, is simply your "get away car". Regardless of how this ends, the tech industry will be seen for what it is. A den of thieves and will never be forgiven. Smart people will stop using public repositories for source code. Open source will die. Programming languages will emerge that LLMs dont know anything about and work will continue in private. Bots will be banned. You cannot win this war.
- 1gn15 1y ago
  On the contrary, it is people who attempt to restrict the flow of information who cannot win this war. You have to win every single time. The pirates will only have to win once, and information shall be free.
- graemep 1y ago
  > The rights of ownership do not change because of technology. T They very much do. Modern copyright was a direct result of printing. > Paper was just as easy to copy as an MP not true You are using the word stolen to mean "breaching a state granted monopoly".
- fedeb95 1y ago
  copying paper is not as easy as copying a file. You should try, even making a simple paper notebook that doesn't fall apart isn't easy, let alone print a book. The tech industry may very well cease to exist as we know it, but the concept of a digital copy is way more powerful. My comment didn't have anything to do with LLMs, and you mentioning that technology points out to a shallow understanding what digital means. But the proof will lay in history. Any restriction can be easily overcome because of the nature of the digital world. Only a forceful dictatorial state can make effective restrictions (to some extent), and unless one advocates for that, thus effectively banning the technology itself if not only for some privileged users, one has to accept the nature of what humans have discovered: that counting on his finger (digital is from the latin digitus) can replace its analog counterparts in many situations. Has long has you have fingers you can count, unless someone cuts them off.
- api 1y ago
  Devils advocate: a lot of people I know in the big tech and adjacent VC world are supporters of things like universal basic income because they kind of agree. Eventually we will have to admit that we have created so much wealth that classical work ethics are no longer humane or beneficial to society. It doesn’t mean people don’t work but it means it must at least partially be divorced from sustenance.
  - Planktonne 1y ago
    > a lot of people I know in the big tech and adjacent VC world are supporters of things like universal basic income Does their support manifest in any tangible way? It's a popular thing for tech people to talk about, but it doesn't seem to be matched by any effort or associated behaviours.
    - api 1y ago
      I don’t know. Some may have donated to things or to politicians that support such views, but most wealthy people are like most people in general. They often don’t do very much about their personal political views beyond voting and occasionally expressing them. Those who are activists with their money are in the minority.
  - gedy 1y ago
    > a lot of people I know in the big tech and adjacent VC world are supporters of things like universal basic income because they kind of agree. I think that's just a convenient out for folks who are automating jobs away, and whom also have no qualms about hiring offshore vs people around them.
- LocalH 1y ago
  IP infringement is not and never has been "theft" or "stealing".
api 1y ago
> If something is made only for money, it is not art, and indeed I can understand why those making it advocate so strongly for copyright restrictions, money being the only thing attached to their art. How do artists eat? It is true: art made only for money is usually not very good. But good art can, does, and should make money. “Information wants to be free” is another way of saying “labor wants to be free” which means only rent extracting owners of scarce capital and assets get to make a living. Everyone else is a serf with 5G Internet. If you get rid of copyright, you’ll see literature vanish as an art that can be pursued seriously by anyone but people with trusts or other sources of independent wealth.
- fedeb95 1y ago
  literature was born without copyright. It won't vanish
  - api 1y ago
    It was born when physical books took years to copy, and thus could be sold for a lot of money. It was also often done, like many arts in ancient times, under patronage.
    - fedeb95 1y ago
      not exactly. Literature existed way before physical books, as is the case of the Odyssey and other texts.
- IAmBroom 1y ago
  Ridiculous. I have several friends who are self-published authors. They don't make most of their money from their art; they do it for the fun of it, and the joy of connection with their readers. It literally costs nothing to write and publish short or long-form literature these days. If you want a physical book, the cost is small.
  - api 1y ago
    Writing an actually good novel can take a year or more, which translates to a significant amount of money. It also requires a lot of focus, which makes it hard to do with a "day job." This kind of out of touch "why do they not eat cake?" mentality is a big reason there's such a deep tech backlash right now. Yeah, we can just land six figure jobs no problem, but other fields? Yeah, they should just do it for the passion. They don't need to get paid. Of course authors have a passion for it. Nobody would get into that field without a passion, and people tend to not get good at anything unless they like it. That doesn't mean they don't deserve to earn anything. This is just gross.
IAmBroom 1y ago
> If something is made only for money, it is not art, and indeed I can understand why those making it advocate so strongly for copyright restrictions, money being the only thing attached to their art. I struggle to think of a time when it was not so. Da Vinci apprenticed as a painter; that is, he intended to make his living by selling his art for the dreaded "money". Other capitalist fraudsters posing as "artists" included Michaelangelo (who accepted the despised "money" for painting the Sistine Chapel!!!), Rembrandt, Degas, Picasso, and Pollack. Then there are those charlatans of the art world whose names are forgotten to history, but they certainly accepted money for illustrating the walls of the pyramid passageways, the pages of bibles, and countless portraits of kings and courtesans.
- mytailorisrich 1y ago
  When you visit Italy all those masterpieces from the Renaissance are commissions made for money.
- fedeb95 1y ago
  that they worked for money doesn't mean money was the only thing attached to their art. You quoted a period very different from now, where there wasn't any stupid royalty or copyright: you had to work in order to earn money, if you were a painter, that meant making new paintings. I'm not stating that today technologies don't bring up new questions. But making silly laws that go against the nature of such technologies won't solve them.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

back2dafucha 1y ago

The rights of ownership do not change because of technology. Technology as we are coming to understand it in its maturity (but immaturity of its practitioners) has come to serve largely only some veiled or unveiled form of thievery. Paper was just as easy to copy as an MP3. And material could be stolen through other means very easily. Wishing away intellectual property rights after you have stolen the entire Internet for profit, is simply your "get away car". Regardless of how this ends, the tech industry will be seen for what it is. A den of thieves and will never be forgiven. Smart people will stop using public repositories for source code. Open source will die. Programming languages will emerge that LLMs dont know anything about and work will continue in private. Bots will be banned. You cannot win this war.

1gn15 1y ago
On the contrary, it is people who attempt to restrict the flow of information who cannot win this war. You have to win every single time. The pirates will only have to win once, and information shall be free.
graemep 1y ago
> The rights of ownership do not change because of technology. T They very much do. Modern copyright was a direct result of printing. > Paper was just as easy to copy as an MP not true You are using the word stolen to mean "breaching a state granted monopoly".
fedeb95 1y ago
copying paper is not as easy as copying a file. You should try, even making a simple paper notebook that doesn't fall apart isn't easy, let alone print a book. The tech industry may very well cease to exist as we know it, but the concept of a digital copy is way more powerful. My comment didn't have anything to do with LLMs, and you mentioning that technology points out to a shallow understanding what digital means. But the proof will lay in history. Any restriction can be easily overcome because of the nature of the digital world. Only a forceful dictatorial state can make effective restrictions (to some extent), and unless one advocates for that, thus effectively banning the technology itself if not only for some privileged users, one has to accept the nature of what humans have discovered: that counting on his finger (digital is from the latin digitus) can replace its analog counterparts in many situations. Has long has you have fingers you can count, unless someone cuts them off.
api 1y ago
Devils advocate: a lot of people I know in the big tech and adjacent VC world are supporters of things like universal basic income because they kind of agree. Eventually we will have to admit that we have created so much wealth that classical work ethics are no longer humane or beneficial to society. It doesn’t mean people don’t work but it means it must at least partially be divorced from sustenance.
- Planktonne 1y ago
  > a lot of people I know in the big tech and adjacent VC world are supporters of things like universal basic income Does their support manifest in any tangible way? It's a popular thing for tech people to talk about, but it doesn't seem to be matched by any effort or associated behaviours.
  - api 1y ago
    I don’t know. Some may have donated to things or to politicians that support such views, but most wealthy people are like most people in general. They often don’t do very much about their personal political views beyond voting and occasionally expressing them. Those who are activists with their money are in the minority.
- gedy 1y ago
  > a lot of people I know in the big tech and adjacent VC world are supporters of things like universal basic income because they kind of agree. I think that's just a convenient out for folks who are automating jobs away, and whom also have no qualms about hiring offshore vs people around them.
LocalH 1y ago
IP infringement is not and never has been "theft" or "stealing".

api 1y ago

> If something is made only for money, it is not art, and indeed I can understand why those making it advocate so strongly for copyright restrictions, money being the only thing attached to their art. How do artists eat? It is true: art made only for money is usually not very good. But good art can, does, and should make money. “Information wants to be free” is another way of saying “labor wants to be free” which means only rent extracting owners of scarce capital and assets get to make a living. Everyone else is a serf with 5G Internet. If you get rid of copyright, you’ll see literature vanish as an art that can be pursued seriously by anyone but people with trusts or other sources of independent wealth.

fedeb95 1y ago
literature was born without copyright. It won't vanish
- api 1y ago
  It was born when physical books took years to copy, and thus could be sold for a lot of money. It was also often done, like many arts in ancient times, under patronage.
  - fedeb95 1y ago
    not exactly. Literature existed way before physical books, as is the case of the Odyssey and other texts.
IAmBroom 1y ago
Ridiculous. I have several friends who are self-published authors. They don't make most of their money from their art; they do it for the fun of it, and the joy of connection with their readers. It literally costs nothing to write and publish short or long-form literature these days. If you want a physical book, the cost is small.
- api 1y ago
  Writing an actually good novel can take a year or more, which translates to a significant amount of money. It also requires a lot of focus, which makes it hard to do with a "day job." This kind of out of touch "why do they not eat cake?" mentality is a big reason there's such a deep tech backlash right now. Yeah, we can just land six figure jobs no problem, but other fields? Yeah, they should just do it for the passion. They don't need to get paid. Of course authors have a passion for it. Nobody would get into that field without a passion, and people tend to not get good at anything unless they like it. That doesn't mean they don't deserve to earn anything. This is just gross.

IAmBroom 1y ago

> If something is made only for money, it is not art, and indeed I can understand why those making it advocate so strongly for copyright restrictions, money being the only thing attached to their art. I struggle to think of a time when it was not so. Da Vinci apprenticed as a painter; that is, he intended to make his living by selling his art for the dreaded "money". Other capitalist fraudsters posing as "artists" included Michaelangelo (who accepted the despised "money" for painting the Sistine Chapel!!!), Rembrandt, Degas, Picasso, and Pollack. Then there are those charlatans of the art world whose names are forgotten to history, but they certainly accepted money for illustrating the walls of the pyramid passageways, the pages of bibles, and countless portraits of kings and courtesans.

mytailorisrich 1y ago
When you visit Italy all those masterpieces from the Renaissance are commissions made for money.
fedeb95 1y ago
that they worked for money doesn't mean money was the only thing attached to their art. You quoted a period very different from now, where there wasn't any stupid royalty or copyright: you had to work in order to earn money, if you were a painter, that meant making new paintings. I'm not stating that today technologies don't bring up new questions. But making silly laws that go against the nature of such technologies won't solve them.