Technology

parent

[–] General_Effort@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

I see. Thanks for explaining.

This view of property rights as absolute is what right-libertarians, anarcho-capitalists, etc... espouse. Usually the cries of "theft" come when it gets to taxes, though. Is it supposed to be not right because it's about intellectual property?

Property rights are not necessarily right-wing (communism notwithstanding). What is definitely right-wing is (heritable) privilege and that's implied in these views of property.

ETA: Just to make sure that I really understand what you are saying: When you say "stealing someone's work" you do mean the unauthorized copying of copyrighted expression, yes? Do you actually understand that copyright is intellectual property and that property is not usually called work? Labor and capital are traditionally considered opposites, of a sort, particularly among the left.

parent

[–] CurbsTickle@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

So... You think their art or writing was created by what then? Magic? Do you think no time was expended in the creation of books, research, drawings, painted canvases, etc?

Do you think they should starve because we currently live in a world driven entirely around money?

I don't get your point even remotely.

parent

[–] General_Effort@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

I am just pointing out the meaning of words; originally just left vs right-wing.

Labor is not capital. The factories owned by Tesla were built by workers, just like the robots in them. Time was expended on their design. And yet, all that is still property. When some worker in such a factory takes a wrench home for personal use, then they are not stealing the work of Elon Musk or the other share-holders.

To make a point about policy: None of the owners of the NYT, or Getty, or others like them will starve because of fair use. They are rich people, they will stay rich, and I see no reason to give them more money simply because they own a lot of intellectual property. Anyone at actual risk of starving will only be hurt by sending more of the national income to the top.

US copyright exists "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". The idea is that this can be achieved by introducing a profit motive. Requiring license fees for existing, publicly accessible works, can't conceivably serve this purpose. It seems obvious that it will only hurt the purpose.

parent

[–] CurbsTickle@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child)

You realize it wasn't just massive corporations that had their works taken, right? And that is a key reason why so many people are concerned about an AI/LLM company taking the work of others, and using it for their own profit?

Thinking this is limited to NYT or Getty is ignorant at best.

Not to mention the migration of that goal post.

parent

[–] General_Effort@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago

I am aware what the datasets contain.

I don't see non-profit AI drawing less rage, so I don't believe that the concern is about AI being used for profit. Maybe, when you say "for their own profit" this is another special expression like "taken" (by which, I believe, you mean copying without authorization)?

I don't really know why so many people are coming through for the rich. I am not an eat the rich kinda guy, but giving them money for nothing is just absolutely bonkers to me. What I know is that a lot of people were simply hoodwinked. I strongly suspect that others feel that they have to support that because of some ideological conviction. But eventually, I simply don't know what's going on with that. It's why I originally posed the question.

IDK what you mean by "migration of that goal post".