We're saltly because all of these rich people truly got to skirt copyright laws while regular people got in trouble for "digesting the same digital bits." They even get to resell any work that has been processed and mixed with other works as long as it comes from their AI...

[–] Schmoo 13 points 23 hours ago (2 children)

At the root of this cognitive dissonance is who benefits and who doesn't. Copyright law is selectively applied in a way that protects the powerful and exploits the powerless. In a capitalist economy copyright is meant to protect people's livelihoods by ensuring they are compensated for their labor, but due to the power imbalance inherent to capitalism it is instead used only to protect the interests of capital. The fact that AI companies are granted full impunity to violate the copyright of millions is evidence that copyright law is ineffective at the task for which it was purportedly created.

[–] skulbuny@sh.itjust.works 0 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (1 children)

In a capitalist economy copyright is meant to protect people's livelihoods by ensuring they are compensated for their labor

Whose propaganda did you suck down blindly? Copyright is meant to foster and improve the commons and public domain, and only that. The goal of copyright is not "money" and monopolies, but that's what capitalism does to things designated as property.

The fact you can transfer and sell your copyright (because it's property in capitalism), it becomes a commodity to be bought and sold and traded. If copyright was not tradeable or transferable, we wouldn't be in in this situation where art is property to be owned.

[–] Schmoo 1 points 9 hours ago

Whose propaganda did you suck down blindly?

Chill out a bit, my comment could not have possibly given you the impression that I'm a supporter of capitalism if you had read it carefully. I began my comment by putting forward the capitalist argument for copyright - a steel-man argument - and ended it by debunking it.

Copyright is meant to foster and improve the commons and public domain

You said yourself that copyright establishes art as private property (or "intellectual property" if we're being more precise). That does the opposite of fostering and improving the commons and public domain.

If copyright was not tradeable or transferable

Then it wouldn't be copyright. Copyright is a capitalist construct, not a public good corrupted by capital.

[–] tee9000@lemmy.world -1 points 15 hours ago

Its just unprecedented terroritory and the cutting edge of technology is always at odds with the slower justice system. Not taking sides here but the only entities that are on the cutting edge of tech innovation are generally always going to be tech corporations.