Of course copying is not stealing, but everything else.
this post was submitted on 20 Apr 2025
1221 points (95.5% liked)
Fuck AI
2417 readers
2905 users here now
"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"
A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
But if a tangent from the post, but you raise a valid point. Copying is not theft, I suppose piracy is a better term? Which on an individual level I am fully in support of, as are many authors, artists and content creators.
However, I think the differentiation occurs when pirated works are then directly profited off of — at least, that’s where I personally draw the distinction. Others may has their own red lines.
e.g. stealing a copy of a text book because you can’t otherwise afford is fine by me; but selling bootleg copies, or answer keys directly based off it wouldn’t be OK.
If your entire work is derived from other people's works then I'm not okay with that. There's a difference between influence and just plain reproduction. I also think the way we look at piracy from the consumer side and stealing from the creative side should be different. Downloading a port of a sega dreamcast game is not the same as taking someone else's work and slapping your name on it.
Then there's always that one guy who's like "what about memes?"
MSpaint memes are waaaaay funnier than Ai memes, if only due to being a little bit ass.
Ass is the most important thing in a meme
EDIT: I feel like I could have written this better but I will stand by it nonetheless
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
Damn, I had no idea the Game UI DB guy was so based. Huge respect from me.
Some many in these comments are like "what about the ethical source data ones?"
Which ones? Name one.
None of the big ones are. Wtf is ethically sourced? E.g. Ebay wants to collect data for ai shit. My mom has an account, and she could opt out of them using her data but when I told her about it, she told me that she didn't understand. And she moved on. She just didn't understand what the fuck they are doing and why she might should care. But I guess it is "ethically" sourced as they kinda asked by making it opt out, I guess.
That surely is very ethical and you can not critic it for it... As we all know, an 50yo adult fucking a 14yo would also be totally cool as long as the 14yo doesn't say no. Right? That is how our moral compass work. /S
Fucking disgusting. All of you tech bro complain about people not getting ai or tech in general and then talk about ethically sourced data. I spit on you.
I love IT, I work in it and I live it, but I have morals and you could too
Edit: after a bunch of messages telling me that I am wrong. I wonder when they will realize that they are making my point. I am saying that it isn't ethically sourced without consent and uninformed consent isn't consent. And they are tell me, an it professional with an interest in how machine learning functions ever since alphago and 7 years before the ai hype, that I don't understand it. If I don't understand it, what makes you believe the general public understands and can consent to it. If I am wrong about ai, I am wrong about ai but I am not wrong about the unethical nature of that data, people don't understand it.
But I guess it is “ethically” sourced as they kinda asked by making it opt out, I guess.
No.
As your mother's case shows, making it "opt out" is emphatically not the ethical choice. It is the grifter's choice because it comes invariably paired with difficult-to-find settings and explanations that sound like they come from a law book as dictated by someone simultaneously drunk and tripping balls.
The only ethical option is "opt in". This means people give informed consent (or if they don't bother to read and just click OK at least they get consented hard like they deserve). This means you have to persuade that the choice is good for them and not just for the service provider.
TL;DR: Opt-in is the way you do things without icky "I don't understand consent" vibes.
Did you read the whole comment? You understand that I was sarcastic and I followed it by be hinting at the idea that "she didn't say no" is not considered consent in e.g. sexual encounters, raising the question why would it be here?
So we agree. You just misunderstood my comment.
Yeah, sorry. I've seen so many people say what you said unironically I reacted with my almost-boilerplate response immediately. My bad.
load more comments
(35 replies)
It seems we've come full circle with "copying is not theft"... I have to admit I'm really not against the technology in general, but the people who are currently in control of it are all just the absolute worst people who are the least deserving of control over such a thing.
Is it hypocritical to think there should be rules for corporations that dont apply to real people? Like why is it the other way around and I can go to jail or get a fine for sharing the wrong files but some company does it and they just say its for the "common good" and they "couldnt make money if they had to follow the laws" and they get a fucking pass?
Yeah, I've been a pirate for so long I have zero moral grounds to be against using copyrighted stuff for free...
Except I'm not burning a small nations' worth of energy to download a NoFX album and I'm not recreating that album and selling it to people when they ask for a copy of Heavy Petting Zoo (I'm just giving them the real songs). So, moral high ground regained?
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›