Sarah Silverman, Christopher Golden, and Richard Kadrey are suing OpenAI and Meta over violation of their copyrighted books. The trio says their works were pulled from illegal “shadow libraries” without their consent.

  • @Candelestine
    link
    English
    -31 year ago

    You want to try explaining how, or is throwing basic claims it?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      71 year ago

      What, explain why “artists should pay artists that they study” is an unworkable copyright maximalist take? No, that’s self evident. How it won’t actually help artists, but would further entrench the corporate IP hoarders? No, I won’t do that either. It’s self evident. If your position is literally that artists should pay the artists that inspire them and that they study, you’re a deeply unserious person whose position doesn’t deserve to be seriously debated.

      • @Candelestine
        link
        English
        -31 year ago

        Uh huh. So you don’t actually want to discuss, you just want to be insulting and shut down conversation?

        • @SCB
          link
          English
          11 year ago

          No it’s just a nonsense suggestion.

          • @Candelestine
            link
            English
            -61 year ago

            Another insult. I honestly shouldn’t be surprised.

            • @SCB
              link
              English
              71 year ago

              No one is insulting you. How are you going to pay he unnumbered generations of humanity from which art has grown?

              It’s a nonsense suggestion

              • @Candelestine
                link
                English
                -31 year ago

                It’s quite insulting when you dismiss without any greater reasoning than naming an argument. It’s subtle, but it wouldn’t exactly fly in any kind of serious rl discussion. There’s a difference between addressing an argument and simply calling it names and refusing to provide elaboration.

                Obviously you can’t pay dead people, nor did I say you had to. You could easily simply start, without making it retroactive.

                • @SCB
                  link
                  English
                  21 year ago

                  That destroys the concept of art a free expression. Every graffiti tagger would owe dues. Art woul become an entry paid guild-like institution

                  I know you don’t realize it, but this i dystopian shit.

                  It’s such a self-evidently bad idea that people didnt realize you’d need it explained.

                  • @Candelestine
                    link
                    English
                    -2
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    No, not necessarily. There is a huge legal difference between creating something for commercial gain vs creating it on a voluntary basis. When someone has monetized something, they are pulling in an income from which they can pay people.

                    When someone is doing something on a volunteer or amateur basis, they are not pulling in a similar income. We do stuff like this with our tax system all the time.

                    We can also draw a line between formal and informal instruction, all “learning” does not have to be the same, after all. There’s no reason formal artistic training cannot be required to pay an additional fee where self-study does not. We actually already do this with more technical fields, it’s even become a racket–college textbooks. Why do artists get to be exempt?

                    edit for spelling