"Artists, writers, and creators of all kinds are banding together with a simple message: Stealing our work is not innovation. It's not progress. It's theft - plain and simple."
I agree. I wonder: have the / will the courts agree(d)?
Indeed, and then we still have to remind ourselves that the concept of stealing intellectual property is a very new and fragile one, born with the idea of intellectual property, which is still not something universally understood or accepted.
Intellectual property is ontologically incoherent. Stealing IP isn't possible because IP is a legal construct, not something that exists in the natural world nor in reality.
"Artists, writers, and creators of all kinds are banding together with a simple message: Stealing our work is not innovation. It's not progress. It's theft - plain and simple."
I agree. I wonder: have the / will the courts agree(d)?
We can argue that stealing at planetary scale is something innovative. Of course it still is theft, but at this scale is something without precedent.
Indeed, and then we still have to remind ourselves that the concept of stealing intellectual property is a very new and fragile one, born with the idea of intellectual property, which is still not something universally understood or accepted.
Intellectual property is ontologically incoherent. Stealing IP isn't possible because IP is a legal construct, not something that exists in the natural world nor in reality.
I'm curious why you have a licensing agreement in your "about" if IP isn't real.
So I can do very silly things with the law when my comments end up used for commercial purposes.
The point is to highlight the contradiction, not to avoid it.
Interestingly the creative community benefited from stealing.
US Laws about photography in public places is much different than other countries where you have to get permission from people being photographed.
Creatives have used this to create their own art, based on the non-consensual photos of others.
A particularly egregious example is Arne Svenson, who used telephoto lenses to shoot into apartments and exhibited photos of children for his art
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/art...
And creatives were fine with that. They defended it as transformative, as a sacrifice we make for the betterment of society.
So pardon me, if I don't feel all that bad for creatives when the shoe is on the other foot.
AI is transformative, and brings creative capabilities to far more people.
Perhaps its their turn to sacrifice for the greater good of society.