Microsoft, OpenAI sued for copyright infringement by nonfiction book authors in class action claim::The new copyright infringement lawsuit against Microsoft and OpenAI comes a week after The New York Times filed a similar complaint in New York.
Microsoft, OpenAI sued for copyright infringement by nonfiction book authors in class action claim::The new copyright infringement lawsuit against Microsoft and OpenAI comes a week after The New York Times filed a similar complaint in New York.
deleted by creator
Its wild to me how so many people seem to have got it into their head that cheering for the IP laws that corporations fought so hard for is somehow left wing and sticking up for the little guy.
Can you bring an actual argument to the table, instead of gesturing towards some perceived hypocrisy?
If your ideology brings you to the same conclusions as libertarian techbros who support the theft of content from the powerless and giving it to the powerful, such as is the case with OpenAI shills, I would say you are not, in fact, a leftist. And if all you can do is indirectly play defense for them, there is no difference between a devil’s advocate and a full-throated techbro evangelist.
Just a heads-up, libertarian is usually understood, in the american sense, as meaning right libertarian, including so-called anarcho-capitalists. It’s understood to mean people who believe that the right to own property is absolutely fundamental. Many libertarians don’t believe in intellectual property but some do. Which is to say that in american parlance, the label “libertarian” would probably include you. Just FYI.
Also, I don’t know what definition of “left” you are using, but it’s not a common one. Left ideologies typically favor progress, including technological progress. They also tend to be critical of property, and (AFAIK universally) reject forms of property that allow people to draw unearned rents. They tend to side with the wider interests of the public over an individual’s right to property. The grandfather comment is perfectly consistent with left ideology.
deleted by creator
And your argument boils down to “Hitler was a vegetarian, all vegetarians are Fascists”. IP laws are a huge stifle on human creativity designed to allow corporate entities to capture, control and milk innate human culture for profit. The fact that some times some corporate interests end up opposing them when it suits them does not change that.
Okay, we can set your support of cultural appropriation for profit aside for a moment, and talk about the thing I asked you to do earlier: actually provide an argument, rather than gesture at this imagined hypocrisy you are claiming.
The fact you can’t do this, and the fact that you paint with a broad brush anyone who does not buy into your libertarian beliefs as a supporter of all copyright law (with zero nuance, of course) demonstrates your own hypocrisy, which is demonstrable.
deleted by creator
I already have:
I thought that was a prima facie reason for why they are bad, And no I do not believe all copyright law is bad with no nuance, as you would have seen if you stalked deeper into my profile rather than just picking one that you thought you could have fun with.
Great, now do you have any sources for this? Because in the real world, authors appear to disagree with you.
“If my work is just going to get stolen, and if some company’s shareholders are going to get the benefit of my labor and skill without compensating me, I see no reason to continue sharing my work with the public – and a lot of other artists will make the same choice.”
- N.K. Jemisin
Then you shouldn’t say things like “IP laws are a huge stifle on human creativity”. In fact, since you don’t believe it, you should edit your comments to say something like “Some IP laws are bad.”
Where do you stand on the case of James Somerton and his plaigirism of the works of multiple small queer creators? Is he entitled to their cultural output while bashing the minorities they belong to?
There are plenty from people who actually study this stuff.
I don’t have a significant opinion on the Disney case, though I will note that it stems from the fact that corporations are able to buy and sell rights to works as pieces of capital (in this case Disney buying it from Lucasfilm).
I appreciate you linking me a source that says the says the core goal of copyright is to promote the advancement of science and the arts.
“The problem with modern copyright doctrine is not copyright in itself, but the seemingly limitless grant of rights on an insufficiently particularized basis. The solution offered is two-fold: the extension of copyright protection should be more limited, and the allowance of copying should be broader. This would ensure that copyright doctrine most efficiently incentivizes creation, by protecting what is creative yet allowing individuals to build upon existing works.”
Which I entirely agree with!
I appreciate you linking me a source that says the says the core goal of copyright is to promote the advancement of science and the arts, ie incentivizing creatives to create.
“The problem with modern copyright doctrine is not copyright in itself, but the seemingly limitless grant of rights on an insufficiently particularized basis. The solution offered is two-fold: the extension of copyright protection should be more limited, and the allowance of copying should be broader. This would ensure that copyright doctrine most efficiently incentivizes creation, by protecting what is creative yet allowing individuals to build upon existing works.”
And I totally agree! And if you agree as well, I don’t see why you would have any criticism of authors like GRRM and Jemisin who want to return those incentives.
deleted by creator
Sure. Trickle-down FTW.