this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2023
578 points (94.5% liked)
Asklemmy
43942 readers
754 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Artists, writers, creative professionals arguments on generative AI being copyright infringement is moot. They should simply rally with underpaid third-world AI training (tagging) personel to ask for labour compensation, maybe proposing continuous micropayment for individuals.
I don't get all the people who are rallying for stronger IP laws over AI stuff. Like that's possibly the worst solution you could've came up with and will just make the already draconian laws even worse.
IP certainly means protection, though it favors big corps than individuals.
I'm all for those creative professionals. I get why people are upset about their work being used without their consent, especially from people who contracted to provide their work. It's been used to exactly cut such jobs against them.
But to combat the situation tighting IP law doesn't seem to be the right tool.
I think we're better off restricting HOW its used like I've seen some people propose.