They are only fighting it insofar to protect their own profits. They happily trained all data on libgen and archive.org for free and now that most LLM models have that data the push to block access to such sites intensified. When it comes to these things laws are always weaponized.

The AI industry is fighting against copyright, which, up until like 5 years ago, was a Marxist position. It would be difficult and painful in the short term

I fundamentaly disagree with this. You're making an enemy of my enemy argument.

This first point then is just you casualy washing it away as just "painful in the short term" is completely blind to our reality. The short term is already hell and you as a socialist are proposing even more hell onto the working class for some dream pie in the sky move that its better in the long term. Who actualy cares about listening to this? It would make you look like a clown and its not worth ceding ground to liberals on this, why are we allowing libs the opportunity to larp as being concerned about worker rights? Such an easy opportunity for us to organize among these communities thrown away for nothing.

And I'm being generous, these people will just look at you and see the same jackass right wing rethoric of "woke DEI college students with art degrees should have just learned how to code" which has been extremely harmful in the real world to a lot of people, people who would be radicalized towards a further socialist position, yet we shall take almost the same stance? Fuck them for the greater good? If you do this, be smart and do it for something bigger, copyright law is not that important as to let you antagonize people like this.

You realy realy realy can't underestimate how even just saying it would be "painful" to the working class isn't convincing under the current circumstances. You need to provide a concrete theory and an ideology of how this will benefit them and I personally can't find myself making this argument. The best we got to show for is checks notes maybe the AI grift bubble will end anytime between 2-10 years from now while they lose their jobs and the planet gets destroyed?

the AI industry will fail anyways (because of other contradictions). So should we not tactically Support this AI fight against copyright?

This is just a bet. We sit here still waiting for said bubble to pop, it could take 2 or 10 years who knows. Failure as you should know is relative, every previous failure could be said in the same terms, look how finance bros lost in 2008 or how cryptobros lost in 2023 when bitcoin was at 20k.

But I think worst of all is that this doesn't consider the actual real cost of AI, with every new data center being built we head towards the climate change abyss. It should be a condemnation, we do not have the time to be playing 4d chess "strategic support" for an industry that got probably the biggest and worst external costs in human history only second to the oil industry.

This argument when it existed 5 years ago did not consider the current worsening global situation. As things get worse we need to pick the important fights and be more radical, tactical choices that requires considerable loss for little relative gain is just nonsense.

I propose the point shouldn't be AI will fail anyways, no it should be how can we make AI fail as fast as possible and if it means supporting copyright so be it.

I see the complexities (for example, what if ONLY the AI industry gets exemptions and for the important stuff, copyright only gets stronger?)

If you understand this then surely there was never any "tactical fight" anyway. Indeed they'll compromise with the entertainment industry while simultaneously fucking over any sort of independent worker rights and privacy. Some new copyright law will be created and it will just be the same but worse, more violent, more oppressive towards workers while they make deals among themselves how to keep pumping the bubble.

Any other consideration leads to this same conclusion, either we will get weaker copyright in reality or not and its clear we wont. You can spend hours and much effort considering this or you could've taken the simple side of workers rights anyway. Ultimately copyright benefits capitalists just as much but this is a false choice.

This fight exists within the context of supporting the AI industry and they're by far the bigger evil here, as in destroying the planet and humanity level of evil.

I should add as we're seeing the with payment processor censorship stuff, this is so clear and obvious to me, like they'll turn on the hypocritical censorship and twist the law in their favor, there is no benefit in supporting anti-copyright right now when the AI industry is full of the same pro-Trump shills that want to censor and control the working class anyway. There is no victory in sight even in the best case.

I don't think "AI" is meaningfully opposed to copyright, they want to collect rent for this horseshit.

they're only opposed to traditional copyright insofar as it could make future profits difficult. in the "bribe the judges" era we live in I'm sure disney could re-copyright steamboat willie if they wanted

The position was never "individual artists should not own their work", the position was "Perpetual copyright is bad". You act like that's the same when it absolutely isn't.

AI isn't touching Disney because those companies know Disney has teeth. So they copy from all the individual artists who depend on their art to survive and act like that's not bad. I have seen people on this site argue for that actually, because 'it's like pirating a movie'. To which I say: Fuck off. It's not the same because one case takes from a rich as god company while the other takes directly from a worker. Sure, the worker might be providing furry porn but so what? They are fulfilling that societal demand and should be fairly compensated for it. If these AIs were taking exclusively corporate art and shitting out their slop, I would have no problem with that.

Shoplifting from a grocery store is fine. communists would create abolish privately owned grocery stores and socialize the whole chain of production.

This is like 2 guys going through the whole neighborhood, taking every calorie of food from every kitchen, grinding it up into a milkshake and selling some of it back at high prices. And closing the grocery stores.

(we have to believe this is possible, otherwise how will it work once we shift to a socialist society)

in the extreme, sufficient universal social programs could support some amount of socially unnecessary labor like art nobody but the artist wants. direct compensation isn't strictly necessary.

i think a socialist society can do better than that, but hey maybe the town from footloose could achieve socialism without a cultural revolution.

Means of production coming into conflict with the mode of production