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@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

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

        • SCB@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 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@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 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@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 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@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                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

                • SCB@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Again, you’re missing the dystopian guild-nature of art that would result from your proposal. I do not understand why this is the hill you want to die on.

                  College textbooks are not a racket, but rather a result of monopolization of publishing. Why would you want to limit access further?

                  • Candelestine@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Unlike some people, I simply enjoy interesting conversation. Not crusading to change the world by fighting for my beliefs or whatever. I like intellectual exploration and discussion.

                    It’s not a “hill” and I’m not “dying”. It’s a conversation. Not my fault if I’m surrounded by internet geeks.