Just to make the point that I'm interested to see how long this video sticks around, I'll say that I don't disagree with the message.

Is this supposed to be an argument in favor of plagiarism or AI art theft? Yeah, that's all well and good, but you can't make copies of the customers or money that's taken away by people who don't actually work for it. It sort of figures you'd need a video resembling baby sensory media, because that's about the level of logic it takes to have an opinion like that. I'd love to see how long the nut busting lasts off of stale or spoiled leftovers, lol.

You can't copy the stuff you worked for to earn. Copying is totally theft.

dredjir said:
Is this supposed to be an argument in favor of plagiarism or AI art theft? Yeah, that's all well and good, but you can't make copies of the customers or money that's taken away by people who don't actually work for it. It sort of figures you'd need a video resembling baby sensory media, because that's about the level of logic it takes to have an opinion like that. I'd love to see how long the nut busting lasts off of stale or spoiled leftovers, lol.

You can't copy the stuff you worked for to earn. Copying is totally theft.

This is probably more a Piracy Laws thing than anything else, Dred. It's been argued in court for years that anti-piracy laws in digital media are predatory at their best, outright illegal at the worst due to how it works. All goes back to the tape and floppy cloning of the early 80s.

Probably also applies to AI art now when you think about it.

And yes, I'm one of those hippies in the "Information Desires to Be Free" market.

yeah no
if I wrote a story and then someone else copied it, published it, and then claimed that it was their creation that would be stealing. it's called plagiarism and it's a really scummy thing to do
I get that current copyright law sucks but the problem isn't that copying other people's work is illegal. the problem is that copyright lasts a century before a work can enter the public domain and in the meantime, it's too easy for people to abuse the system.

Okay so over simplify the argument here aren't we.

For one, yes you are right. Copying alone is not law braking, however copying an idea to pass off as your own is (Copyright protection/ IP theft). However if you copy bits and parts of something and mix new things into it, then it's fair use. there's even a limit on copy right protection (steam boat willy into the public domain , also you mf wasted no time on that) even capcom USA had to take an L there.

"spite of the intentional similarities between the two games, the court concluded that Data East did not infringe upon Capcom's copyright, as most of these similarities were not protected under copyright. Judge William H. Orrick Jr. applied a legal principle known as the merger doctrine, where courts will not grant copyright protection where it would effectively give someone a monopoly over an idea."

So yes copying helps give new ideas, but people can just steal ideas and copy.

endergirl93 said:
This is probably more a Piracy Laws thing than anything else, Dred. It's been argued in court for years that anti-piracy laws in digital media are predatory at their best, outright illegal at the worst due to how it works. All goes back to the tape and floppy cloning of the early 80s.

Probably also applies to AI art now when you think about it.

And yes, I'm one of those hippies in the "Information Desires to Be Free" market.

Fair way of looking at it, if it's AI art then meh? I know artist hate them and I get way however if it's for piracy laws, yeah no I already HATED paying over 150 for FL studios at the same time I get where they are also coming from, I pirated my fair share of shit. the only way I see Pirating anything as ok is

1. you can't get it from officials means at all.
2. It's free anyway.
3. Discontinued ver.

that's it. any thing out off that is stealing, now I must hide My FBI agent is at my door.

dredjir said:
Is this supposed to be an argument in favor of plagiarism or AI art theft? Yeah, that's all well and good, but you can't make copies of the customers or money that's taken away by people who don't actually work for it. It sort of figures you'd need a video resembling baby sensory media, because that's about the level of logic it takes to have an opinion like that. I'd love to see how long the nut busting lasts off of stale or spoiled leftovers, lol.

You can't copy the stuff you worked for to earn. Copying is totally theft.

Nina Paley did a TEDx talk, which explained her views in a far less patronizing way.

Also, in an issue of one of her webcomics, Nina Paley expressed support for the far more detailed argument presented in Against Intellectual Property by Stephan Kinsella.

wow this is doing the rounds again huh

honestly i think copyright in general is a flawed system rife with ways to exploit it to harm others, same with trademarks, largely dealing with how vauge alot of the terminology is

that SAID its beter then nothing...without some means of control you can and will see people stealing content and ideas that are not their own and trying to make money off it left and right...i wish we lived in a world where people were beter then that (and by in large they are really) but those that arnt make the system nessiary.

i mean look at whats happening with disney's ips now the very SECOND the copyrights expired....bloody bullshit everywhere popping up

endergirl93 said:
This is probably more a Piracy Laws thing than anything else, Dred. It's been argued in court for years that anti-piracy laws in digital media are predatory at their best, outright illegal at the worst due to how it works. All goes back to the tape and floppy cloning of the early 80s.

Probably also applies to AI art now when you think about it.

And yes, I'm one of those hippies in the "Information Desires to Be Free" market.

With piracy laws, I can agree, in part. Especially with how ridiculous some of the standards and punishments are, considering the slop that passes for music and movies of late. Even so, though, if there is no incentive for creation, we would not have any of the things we enjoy, because no one would bother creating it. After all, and being an artist myself, I want my work to be worth something. A hobby does not pay the bills, and paying the bills/putting food on the table is my incentive to create. Take that away by not paying for it, or cheapen it by stealing it to make AI means that my incentive is taken away. It's basic economics.

But I do understand that piracy laws aren't perfect. Far from it. Especially when those same people are doing everything in their power to reduce the access, or the availability of the things they expect us to pay for. We need entertainment to stay sane, but even so, it is a luxury. There are two sides to it, most definitely.

anicebee said:
Nina Paley did a TEDx talk, which explained her views in a far less patronizing way.

Also, in an issue of one of her webcomics, Nina Paley expressed support for the far more detailed argument presented in Against Intellectual Property by Stephan Kinsella.

I put it to endergirl as simply as I could. It might be best to use that comment as a response to this as well

dredjir said:
I put it to endergirl as simply as I could. It might be best to use that comment as a response to this as well

I wasn't trying to be for one side or the other, I was just giving resources on the animator's views more than this one minute cartoon does.

No one mentioned the word "Attribution" yet; that's basically what i'd want laws to uphold in a perfect world.

I must admit, the song has a good rhythm.

i kind of understand the point of the animation. the thing is: it's not about pirating stuff, but the redistribution of media, for the sake of preservation.

the things that comes to my mind are basically: public domain media, like the ones that got past the copyright expiration date; open-source software, like the KDE ones and Linux distros, copyright-free music people use on youtube videos, etc.

and piracy is for me a double-edged sword: in one side, some media unfortunately have to be pirated for the sake of preservation, because some companies hold the copyrights, but they leave their IPs to rot in obscurity, and in the other side, is undeserving due to some small creators wanting to make a living from their art.

the words in the title of the video are exact, both in text and spirit.

dredjir said:
you can't make copies of the customers or money that's taken away by people who don't actually work for it.

Competition isn't theft.

phantomofthefurrycon said:
yeah no
if I wrote a story and then someone else copied it, published it, and then claimed that it was their creation that would be stealing. it's called plagiarism and it's a really scummy thing to do
I get that current copyright law sucks but the problem isn't that copying other people's work is illegal. the problem is that copyright lasts a century before a work can enter the public domain and in the meantime, it's too easy for people to abuse the system.

This was also one of their videos too:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPtH2KPuQbs

You know I'm kind of interested in hearing more about this argument. At first I was saying, "How is it not theft?" When I started thinking about it I'm willing to hear more of an argument for how it's not theft. I don't exactly see it as theft or not theft specifically considering it's an entirely different word from a technical standpoint, and it's largely dependent upon what your copying and what you're doing with it, but I get the point when people say it is theft. This video is not a convincing argument at all in my opinion, but I feel like I'm willing to hear more nuanced and fleshed out take on copying not being theft. Reading the comments, makes me think that there's more to this that I should hear.

malikfoxen said:
ow I'm kind of interested in hearing more about this argument. At first I was saying, "How is it not theft?" When I started thinking about it I'm willing to hear more of an argument for how it's not theft. I don't exactly see it as theft or not theft specifically considering it's an entirely different word from a technical standpoint, and it's largely dependent upon what your copying and what you're doing with it, but I get the point when people say it is theft. This video is not a convincing argument at all in my opinion, but I feel like I'm willing to hear more nuanced and fleshed out take on copying not being theft. Reading the comments, makes me think that there's more to this that I should hear.

Late to the party, but here it goes.

There are two reasons for IP law, one is that IP is a right, the second is that IP law has a utilitarian benefit.
The argument for IP as a right is that it takes time and effort to create ideas and expressions of ideas. Because you have put time into creating a piece of art, you should have control over that art the same way you would have control over a mug or a cake you have used put time and effort into making.
The utilitarian argument is that IP law makes creating ideas and expressions of ideas more profitable. Since people like having a lot of intellectual production, it makes sense to support IP laws to support that production which otherwise would be unprofitable.

This video is directly a counterargument to the IP as a right argument. Intellectual property is not similar to physical property because IP can be copied without effecting the original. If IP rights is the same as physical property rights, why does it expire? If you build your own mug you own that mug forever and can pass it on to your children. Doing the same with IP law would result in a society where you'd need to track down and pay licensing fees to every inventor, writer, and artist behind everything required for whatever you want to make, all the way to the invention of the wheel. Similarly, IP law can be viewed as an infringement on physical property rights. If I drew mickey mouse on a piece of paper, I am no longer able to sell or publicly display that paper in a world with IP law. As more things are copyrighted, they progressively chip away at what I can legally use my own physical property for. "But shouldn't a creator get credit for their work?" They should, but you do not need the rest of IP law to do that. You could replace IP law with a much simpler law that bans claiming false authorship over a work without anything restricting copying.

The weak points of the utilitarian argument can pretty easily be shown by pointing to the works that IP law has actual effected. IP law makes fan games generally illegal despite the fact that people want those. Rather than encouraging the creation of new creative works, instead copyright has encouraged studios to sit on their past successes. We would not get so many meritless remakes if it was not for copyright law. There is an argument that it is a worthwhile sacrifice to take these downsides of IP law because without IP law no creation would be profitable, but I object to this too. IP is not the only way to make profit off of artistic creation. Commissions would still be just as profitable without copyright, and so would patronship. Independent artists that lack the cash for to actually defend their copyright have already proven that money can be made without it. The only question is if those models would be as effective at larger scales. There are also theoretically monetization models that would work well at scale without IP law that haven't been invented yet because we've had some form of IP ever since the invention of the printing press.

Personally I would advocate for the reduction of copyright length to 20 years, then 20 years after that halving it to 10, then 5, then removal entirely. Going straight to complete removal would result in a lot of chaos as things that work now will not work in a world without copyright, and vice versa.