Comradeship // Freechat

Copyright is bad actually and should be abolished. It constrains creative potential and is a relic that has been weaponized under late capitalism to an extreme end. Intellectual property is disgusting nonsense.

Why should a genius invention that derives from an earlier idea entitle the holder of the earlier idea to all the money or most of it? Why should someone who sits on something they filed be able to demand someone who comes up with a practical use for it pays them money?

And why should someone's kids or estate or some company be able to hold the rights to someone's art and charge royalties for decades after their death?

We should have publicly funded research universities and laboratories that should churn out ideas for all to use and take in whatever direction they'd like.

I agree the capitalists are ignoring their own rules to plunder and create a machine for creating money without (as much) labor but they've never really been strict about following their own rules and it's kind of an odd move to whine that they're dishonest and not following the capitalist IP theory and rulebook.

Artists should be collectivizing right now and preparing a lawsuit against those operating AI art generators fed on their copyrighted artwork. So yes, the proverbial machine can be smashed in this case, if only because it infringes copyright law in such a massive way.

You think you can use the master's tools to tear down his house while he just stands idly by and shrugs? It's possible they could win a short-term victory but you are using the bourgeois legal system under the bourgeois government. But only if the bourgeois think they can use it exploit the proletariat further, to impoverish and hurt most people. If need be they could arrange very cheap licensing or hire artists to feed the machine, you'd at most set them back a bit. They can after all draw from many public domain artworks from dead artists, from artwork done by corporate artists under contract, and so on and so forth. Consider the manga artist who creates for some publication. They license all their work to them and that corporation can form an agreement to sell access for fractions of a cent per drawing to AI generators, perhaps in the hope of replacing their artists someday or perhaps just for some quick cash.

And it's an odd legal argument you need make in service of it too. Can artists sue other artists who as art students studied their art for techniques which they copied? That's what the AI company lawyers will say. Because the AI is doing something similar though a bit more direct. You can't point to an exact lifting from a given work so much as broad learning from styles, trends, and themes and re-using them.

But all of art for all of human history has been taking from others, their themes, themes in nature, inspirations, idols looked up to. Which is why I find this idea dangerous. If the art was available for public viewing, is an artist who looks through deviant-art profiles and learns a style from them and then opens their own store a thief as well? Why not?

I'd almost fear more a ruling in the favor of the artists to prevail against that argument, a nightmarish dystopia where you're fined or billed for your eyes wandering to a copyrighted work that you haven't subscribed to a plan to view. A total monetization of all art, ideas, etc to an extreme draconian degree.

There's no difference between a human looking at a piece of art or an AI doing it. I'm a human, and the art I create is influenced by art I've seen. It took Gundam to show me the beauty in cargo lifts.