Lol you're gonna block me because you responded to me and you don't like that I think you're wrong?? Then go ahead I guess, but seems pretty petty lol

You really just don't understand what proletarian means, and are trying to push me into a vulgar Marxist position. Proletarians are defined by having to sell their labour time, not selling the products of their labour. Anything about whether they work or not, or whether their work is hands-on or not is a useless distinction when push comes to shove, and history bares that out. It's a distinction that seems unimportant until cases like this where the desired policies are opposed. Take the 18th Brumaire, where the petty bourgeois were mostly tradesmen who made and sold directly their own products. Marx writes about how they feared the loss of their land and small properties moreso than they feared any dictatorship of Napoleon, and so they supported Napoleon in the hopes that he would stabilize their society and put down the proletarian revolution. Up until then, many in France had mistakenly thought that they were in an alliance with the petty bourgeoisie.

In this case, the distinction is whether or not someone owns the work they produce/the service they sell directly to a customer. Om the opposite side are those who are paid for their time and just have to fill that time with work which someone else will own. Sure, for many artists that means that they just have a computer and sell drawings or something, but the fact that they own that image, instead of ONLY owning their own labour time to sell, makes them not proletarian IN THAT PROCESS. And the legal distinction is who owns the copyright. Proletarians never do for their work.

Now, this doesn't mean they're immediately an enemy or something, that's just a super limited view of such things. Someone isn't immediately bad for having other interests. And people can have mixed interests, where they work mostly as a prole and then on the side do PB work. Claiming otherwise is some vulgar Marxism. It just means that we need to understand that their material interests aren't fully aligned with proletarianism and we must consider that and the possibility of betrayal in making decisions. In this case, I'm trying to sus out whether PB artists fighting for copyright actions against AI companies are actually working against the benefits to proletarians, and the more we talk the more convinced I am that they are. The proletarian artist works for a capitalist and is paid for their time and owns none of the produce, and so has absolutely no reason to support copyright. The PB artists wants to be allowed to own the copyright. It's an argument for stability in the legal realm exactly like in the 18th Brumaire.

Reconsider your ableist words. If we weren't on a dead thread I'd report you for calling me 'stupid'.

Stop acting like you're not also supporting capital! You absolutely are! We're just talking about if it's worth all this effort that I see people pushing against AI companies. Fuck AI companies for all the other stuff, but hurting copyright is just a good thing for us. Every loophole allows for people to weaken capital through use of copyrighted stuff. Whatever legal distinction is made for AI companies to get to continue will be used by China, Niger, Burkina Faso, as cover to use intellectual property owned by western companies and not face sanctions.