I guess I'll say that I probably don't fully understand, but I can try to form my own take and see how you can answer it if you don't mind.
Morally speaking, it's very possible that some good things that originated from a bad thing can still be left alone. Popular super hero stories only exist because of horrible crimes in real life. Obviously, we do not need to stop the elements of a fictional legal story, let alone the fact that it's a huge part of the foundation of it because it came from it.
For a regular copyright infringement or 'piracy' case of a copyrighted art. Some artists might of gotten inspired by an art found on a plagiarism page. It sucks the artist gave a promotion to it, but it doesn't really seem to logically make sense to go after the reaction to it that was formed into a new good art (e.g. idea gained from morally wrong place, artist used the idea in head and made new original harmless art with it) after the fact. Like yeah, without it, the type of art the artist created by hand (due to the idea found through the plagiarized infringement page) would not exist in this case, but we can still separate the after fact in many cases even though bad source prior helped made it possible.
So in the case of generated visual AI, whereas using the tool did fuel the stolen art tool even when only trying to find a spark, the artist using the spark and making a legally new art via drawing out of a new and more original creation could be left alone. Artist best not to use harmful tool in the future, but no need to destroy any good that formed after it. That was one of my main points.
It's possible a harm could be extended by a bad source, but I see no logical way to justify the idea that harm is expended to many examples of these three cases. So a poison tree made non-poison fruit in some cases.
Of course, it's also possible for an artist to use gen visual AI, get a specific certain result and just use that (thus actually using the AI "art") or imitate too much of the AI image (from scratch, so human art technically) but still copy too much of it increasing the risk of copying an original copyrighted picture such AI trained on. That might be poison off a poison tree.
For anyone reading, I'm probably embarrassing myself if I'm still misunderstanding the comment...
I'm sorry but it really sounds like you are a reactionist. You are even trying to decide one thing is just slop when you could say that against a lot of pre-gen ai stuff today.
"The difference is in the intent. People who..."
No it's not. Maybe you aren't aware but a lot of "see what happens" also includes slopped results based off robot commands but more simple. There is 100% no difference between downloading three copyrighted images, putting it in a fancy paint program, using a few commands or programs to then less predicted result in non-sense to see what it's like and get an idea from the slop it produces, than using the fancier more robotic special robot (gen ai visual) and seeing what happens then get an idea from it. BOTH of which uses copyrighted images in the first place, where one simply has some extra get-random commands and likely branch commands. (Note: yes I'm aware it's not as simple more of that but it's in the same realm of random slop anyway).
"The whole point of generative AI, at least according to the assholes who evangelize it, is that it’s supposed to give you exactly what you want. ..."
For the first part, that claim isn't true, at least not all the time. Generative ai can produced less predicted results and some people will use it so to see what it's like to get an idea faster than going to Google and spending hours to find mixes to see.
And why would I use the forest thing? Maybe because it's faster, less risky (well in terms of online researching I guess?) and it can easily make weird variations that that no other artists did?
I've seen a video where there was an ai video predicting where Mario goes in one of those slop video non-sense, clearly an experimental type of thing and it produced many weird things that not even the original video uploaded knew if im assuming right. Proving my point. It doesn't give you "exactly what you want", at least not all the time.
Plus some people may want to use it to enjoy content faster without having to feel with visually trying to get it manually but I would prefer the licensed type thing I mentioned.
"I’ve already got one argument going with you here and I’m not about to get off on a tangent, so I’ll put a pin on this point with the following sentence: If you think stealing other people’s hard work to transform it into a digital pastiche of their work and claim you created “art” is a morally righteous act, you both underestimate my hatred for copyright and overestimate how willing I am to conflate copyright infringement with plagiarism."
Im talking about getting an idea from a tool that uses some pictures without permission, getting idea from it, forming my own thoghts about it, then DRAWING or modeling it myself from my own experience about said idea. Thats 100 fucking percent no morally different than what millions of artists do with other peoples works in paint programs, including less predicted slop that some editing tools do actually do (which BTW is transformative fair use sometimes iirc.). BOTH the HUMAN REACTIONS to it AFTER the fact are the same.
"It is doing that, and it still wouldn’t be good even if it wasn’t."
And who are you to decide that if it wasnt? People have a right to use a certain tools that isn't violating anyone's right (the scenario I'm thinking of). If someone wants to use say an visual ai generator off say lawful public domain and lawful special licensed pictures for harmless stuff, its as much as a right as someone deciding to not pay a specific artist and go watch certain baseball game or use that public domain art found online as a reference instead.
"Whether someone treats my opinion of generative AI seriously is wholly irrelevant to the fact that I have the right to share"
...yet you are trying to be a moral dictator against an artist's right to adapt an idea that originated from ai slop to have their own harmless take that actually is human after the fact. Just as much as it's an artists right to adapt a prog. generated texture or a weird rock formation found in nature instead of going to a concept artist and theb paying them.
In the end, it really feels like you are selectively trying to decide that one human experienced based off a hen ai slop doesn't count while leaving all the other ones that is already way different, whereas some anti digital editing people back in 1980s would scream about and make up more made up fallacy ignorant excuses about it.
As a reminder too, I think I'm more pissed at people who goes against an artist adapting an idea that already came from slop. Like even if me (scenario wise) using the tool that was aiding crap was bad in the first place, its still my right to at least adapt the idea that already came from it, and have my own creative take to it. If im in the "wrong" in, then you are in the wrong for fair use transformative works in a digital program because its not as authentic as painting or some crap.
Note it's possible I missed some stuff from your comments so I apologize for missing anything.
I feel like you are ignorant of how our existing culture works to an extent. Millions of works did not come from 100% human hand drawn art, digital or physical. Many of them came from a human experiencing a variety of many things that isnt 100% always crafted by a human, let alone some way less or more. Many humans also experienced learning differently than each other and that INCLUDES modern digital mashup transformation with "see what happens" tools too, way before gen visual AI existed. Some of these experiments are also similar to spitting out stuff randomly.
Photoshop splashing, prog. texture or 3D landscape generation experimenting, throwing physical multiple human art into a cluster to see what happens, and some digital with simple digital art tools to see what comes up, accidents, many more things that don't come from a traditional manual use of a physical paintbrush, via digital and even physical world (but not as much). Hell, most works are a combination of things found in nature that isn't created by humans in case I need to make that point.
And yet here you are saying that the moment there is a few special computer code making less predictable formations or variants by copying other works first (like what millions do without permission in digital for many years with less but more simple less predictable (e.g. photoshop experimental mashing splashes)) ways, you say it doesn't count. Nope. A human taking an idea learned from a less human the moment it's from a special robot, it all doesn't count. None of it.
Let me make an example. Say I used gen visual AI, I copy other peoples works without permission (which isn't itself wrong because copying isn't theft so it always depends beyond that) via some special command. I type in "show me a dark forest", it gives me some variations of it. I of course get what I want to the base and not much skill itself, but then I see some weird combinations or variations that gives me an idea. I then take the idea in my head and I make my own forest with real current human skill, I make a story with more ideas but from me more, then add my own original art with origianl enough shapes by scratch. Beyond that I make a whole series about it. In this scenario, I am 100%, the human, the good old fashion misanthropic too, had an experience with while a weird less human result (naturally no different than discovering a weird rock or pro. gen seed texture result) in the first place but came up with my own conclusions, made up my own creative intake, and with my own will, added creatived stories beyond it. EXACTLY the same as downloading a few copyrighted pictures directly, loading them in photoshop, and experimenting with them in a see what happens way that is transformative (maybe even the legal fair use kind), and get an idea and end result do the same thing. It makes no logical sense to say both are different in this example other than the problems I already mentioned but that has nothing to do with this specific argument. Ai gen "art" isn't always a lazy learn 1-1 imitation lack of skill, lack of education, direction and then do nothing.
There is also the fact that ai gen visual can also promote original shapes and one might redraw that (but not enough to be 1-1 with copyrighted material) and use as an asset but still have creative control beyond it like public domain of human made and non-human made (e.g. texture that was seed generated and released as cc0?).
Also many artists do adapt existing styles instead of coming up with their own but makes new things with it. It feels like you are ignoring other types of artists when you mention the style thing that way?
Like I said, there is an issue where the current tool is being feed on, and corporations are using it for profit more directly with less human artists entirely, and if using it for inspiration is fueling the same thing indirectly then yeah, that isnt good either (the usage itself), and it's morally better off to use a more legal licensed and legal public domain training, but that doesn't mean you, I, or anyone gets to tell legit human crafting artists in the final part of the product of that game is somehow fake, ai slop itself, or "tainted". Like Jesus...
Let's remember the history of people learning from other people's works. People has learned non-sense formations, including many lesser human results (hence mostly non-sense). This includes photoshop manipulation, splashing around other peoples art to see what happens, mistakes in modifying, and some others both through digital and non-digital outside of "gen-AI" visual audio.
Modern Gen-AI simply mixes up other peoples works, and can make weird formations. The difference is a that its another angle leading to the same discovery (like the others) that alone real human can take, and then form their own ideas of the formations and put their own human connection, redraw and result in a new 100% human work. Thus by definition, it's a human work from human experience at the end result.
If you are seriously trying to argue that artists who worked real hard, to make money for their family, should just be seen as wasting their time or that their works are "poisoned" just because of an idea coming from something that may not have been so great, then you are just making a personal excuse to just selectively call out living artists for your own twisted opinion. Next let's call out thousands of artists who felt deeply inspired by a source that was technically pirated in a way that was bad, like a song downloaded improperly or some crap, and stop them from progressing their dreams of hard work for legal works ideal wise. BTW, I'm talking about works that are original enough like taking an idea from a specific result but forming your own original formation over it lawfully.
Again, we can debate wether using the current genAI is really itself fueling a problem so uhh, maybe best to avoid it (not because without permission as copying isn't theft but because it might be fueling bad purposes too) even if the purpose is innocent, but that doesn't mean we should go after a transformative and harmless human formation just because it came from an idea sourced from a bad place after the fact.
Apologizes for any misunderstanding of your comment btw.
You need to remember that even without gen visual AI, humans had already discovered non-sense formations or ideas that were not manually crafted with full intention by another human but was able to make it a form of art via inspiration. Transforming it. This already happened with photoshop manipulation, prog. generation (think of landscapes, like Minecraft), and some included these splashes and weird formations to push with a lot of copyrighted works without permission including manual editing with transformation.
So if someone used a few extra robot codes by using a robot to experiment with mashing copyrighted pictures together to form a new idea which is then controlled and transformed, I don't see this as any different than all that and just see another example of human experience and creativity.
That being said, the current genAI does have problems but if she used basic forms to only get an idea, they used real blood to transform it, it's still human art in the after fact. Even if using it is fueling the current tool fueling bad actors (so ugh best not use that again), the end after result separately is still proof it's creative so that proves it can be useful for creative aim itself. But it's better off if it was using lawful public domain and lawful license images first at the same time.
Some of the words here are not spelled right. I want to point out that I was on phone, wrote a lot, and spell error checking here seems different than what I'm used to. I want to edit but it wouldn't let me so I apologize for some of crappy grammar here. Haha
I believe the current use of gen ai is mainly bad in terms of direct use because of the fact that it uses copyrighted images and despite transformative possibility, the direct usage is too risky and heard some do use identical copies, creating a massive risk. Plus this usage without permission of the artists do help replace them.
However when it comes to using the tool to explore ideas and then having actual humans make their own creative intake of the idea, this seems morally equal to common history of thousands of artists downloading copyrighted images to edit, without permission, and then transforming them private and get new good ideas from it, from computer tools not 100% human crafting either.
The only time I could find this usage bad in terms the ethics of permission and usage, is if using it fuels the program itself whereas such fueling benefits malicious use from other people somehow but I don't know if it works like that. Think of a person going to a stolen artwork page of a harmless work itself, and while taking inspiration from the work itself is harmless, the interaction with the infringer is giving more demand to the infringer which is bad.
However despite all that, some of the arguments from some of the anti-genAI folks are rotten to the core, based off falacies, reeks of massive hypocrisy, and are based off made up moral ideogy that goes avainst actual rights that exist.
One notable tweet was arguing that merely using ai no matter the purpose is bad just because it was based off works without permission, then cited moral rights and copyright. One person pointed out the fact that people often used many images all the time without permission outside of genAI but then anti genAI person said in the lines of "Uhh, that's different because I like that there is human connection experience with how you get inspired."...despite the fact that the foundation of copyright and moral rights make no distinction, let alone the fact that photoshop edits are already less human in some way.
Another horrible argument, and this was a dangerous horrible argument too, was that someone in the name of arvalis (guy who makes "real life" pokemon) argued that if actual human beings made 100 percent human made art influenced off an idea that came from an genAI in the first place, then the final product is still using generated ai, just because it influenced them at some point... even though the final work is based off human experienced and human made art in the last place. Same person argued you are not using copyrighted work if you made it by scratch (without ai) making him hypocritical too. This argument implied that artists who worked and gave all their blood, wasted all of their time and that their hard work is all a waste of time, the moment they are "tainted" with AI in some influence inspiration in the first place. This was one of the most disgusting arguments I've ever seen in probably my life and it's sad it came from him. Like if he wanted to argue that using genAI is bad because it creates less distraction of finding concept artists (though there are some problems with that argument) but left the after fact alone, I wouldn't be as upset.
The argument saying it creates a distraction is flawed too because public domain, and inspired laqful works also helps create distractions, same with having a crazy creative brain from indirect memory of certain works without remember names of who.
Another argument I've seen is that we don't need genAI to get good. This argument misses the fact that it can still help with creative ideas in some cases and faster too. So that is another weird argument.
There are concerns about generated AI art but some of these anti generated AI art folks has gone so down in the barrel to the point of promoting harassment mob against checks notes, actual human artists. It's gone to the point of telling other artists that their hard work doesn't count, or doing something no different than lots of traditions is bad, or just because it's a robot helping them. This isn't ethical. This isn't fighting for artists, this is just discouraging artists like her, and some others from making their own interpretation and being creative due to how they got some ideas.
Current AI art has a lot of problems and I would rather make it where it only uses lawful public domain material, and lawful AI license art, and have a credit list each result, but some of these people are out of their minds and are not fully ethical. Like wow.
What about a lawful game that could be played offline but the consumer knew they were told that they can just "legally" revoke the license at will and possibly be sued from reselling or playing the game? Or be told they cannot have access to certain files in the privacy of their home?
Should the practice be allowed for lawful software just because of what the consumer was told first? I would argue no unless maybe the license had a fixed date within 3 year date and even then people should have a right to preserve lawful files.
Also I think this was more about legal ability from the consumer's end rather than forcing a publisher like Ubisoft to actually keep the servers running. Not so sure. Though I wouldn't mind having some regulation to force certain publishers to give a refund if a legal server got shut down too soon.
Revenge isn't justice.
There isn't even evidence of free will and even then it's just hypocritical in terms of protecting life. Criminals with no exception (a whataboutism type argument here would be perverted) need to be fixed and then get a normal life back and it's proven that, as long as done good enough, that the way Norway prisons do it, mainly helps create less victims. Humanity shouldn't be taken away.
Stuff like this is why we need more better and legal games like maybe Palworld. I personally hope the Palworld Twitter indirectly shame the Pokemon company for disrespecting many of their fans kinda like what Sega did to Nintendo if I recall right. That would be gold.
Actually Copyright law made it possible to own certain lawful software but still not own the Copyright to it. There is also first sale doctrine and RAM doctrine. The concept of "only getting a license" isn't true unless you agree to legally enforceable terms making it so. Certain copies of Software doesn't come with a contract doing so and even if you were getting a license in a payment of a fee, it would probably be hard to enforce "revocable at will" in some places, especially if it's silence on revocability, assuming paying money for it counts as a consideration. Though I was mainly focusing on non-cloud here. I'm not sure about online-only cloud involving certain services.
"It would be one thing if this content was ripped away and everyone on all sides realized that was a possibility."
As nice as that would be, would it fix the main issue though? In this scenario, many would know what they are getting into but what about the concern of ownership and preservation for many software? Wouldn't it better if we have laws to not allow contract law to circumvent around ownership?
One thing that could be very useful is to not only replace "purchase/buy" with "rent" there, but be required to have a fixed date too and have a rental cap to 3 years (to avoid another circumvention) for a single payment. That way Sony might likely use a real purchase option and the future of lawful ownership for many certain software can be legally obtained.
That being said, I'm not too familiar about how this service works so I was thinking in terms of a legal enforceable kind. If this story is more about cloud based like Stadia then I'm not as sure. I keep hearing so many people talk about this story as "digital only future" as troubling so it made me assume this was focused on non-cloud mainly.
To be fair, there are a lot of people who prefer certain fictional characters over real life people, however honestly as long as it's not hurting anyone and isn't trying too, then it's morally not anyone's else's business.
Forcing people to have babies would be a clear a violation of human rights anyway. lol
Besides what I've said on here, the planet is over-populated in terms of nature judging by the stories of how so much life is being destroyed including extinction. It's better off to legally have more adoption available to the right kind of people who is open for it, and as one said, better immigration laws.
The reason why I mentioned it despite the 'purpose' of certain mod files is that I am curious if they can still go after certain Copyright free mod files itself because I am not so sure if Copyright law can suddenly extend to a lawful Copyright free asset file due to the specific purpose. There is also the purpose of those mod files that it's meant to mod some lawful thing someone own which makes me feel like it could feel like a form of fair use, assuming fair use can extend to that part of 106. If I handed someone a paintbrush to help them add a mustache to a Copyrighted Mickey Mouse painting, is the paintbrush itself copyright infringement?
I find a law limiting the human right to innocently mod your own lawful game unfair, so I shouldn't ever feel bad for trying to find a legal way around it. If it truly is copyright infringement then I hope the law gets changed for the good then.
I do understand the reason why there is a restriction on many derivative works is due to the chance a company might make it, but there is usually a strong chance the company might never make it showing that the law really needs to be changed and considering the restriction may stifle so much good creativity. I feel like many free good "sequels" of say many old games really need to be protected. Though this here is more akin of a moral argument and in hopes of a future court ruling in favor and maybe a chance of fair use for it anyway, but I'll keep this here anyway.
There is a video on YouTube made by a lawyer giving his say on this PointCrow mess, and he seems to argue that any mod is derivative and is copyright infringement. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mo_AmQgSSqY
But is he entirely right?
What if a mod file itself contains no Copyrighted assets at all? That would probably mean not only it contains no Copyrighted code, but it might be hard to argue that it's derivative if the file itself clearly doesn't contain that even though it's meant to apply to a game (after downloading it for example). I also feel like it's not as "evil" as flat-out game distribution if the mod in question is very minor, barely mods the game as long as the game is not redistributed, and doesn't contain anything else that would be evil separately. I would find it kinda similar to taking a single frame snapshot of an entire classic Disney Mickey Mouse movie still Copyrighted.
I also thought fair use might have a chance for some derivative works depending on the nature? If I purchase one of those Copyrighted paintings from a popular store, am I not allowed to paint over it over something I purchase in my own home?
And finally, I thought the whole situation was more akin about his video content rather than the mod by itself? If someone made a "Spongebob" mod of Zelda, streamed it, was parody, review, and doesn't contain illegal content outside, then wouldn't the video itself have a bigger chance of fair use even if it's showcasing a derivative work, assuming fair use can apply to all parts of section 106 of Copyright.
Honestly I think true justice is about fixing criminals and then bringing them back into society. I've seen some documents about a prison in Norway that I think is about it. Heard that the way criminals are treated in prison in US generally creates more victims.
I think the only payment that brings value beyond rehabilitating is certain amends, which can be good.
Sorry for like a longer wait. If you don't want to debate, you don't have to.
If you’re right next to the prick and you don’t either distance yourself from the bastard or criticize him openly…
Yet how does me distancing myself make a difference?
They still did the bad thing and got away with it, though.
Getting "away with it" is on itself (at least, maybe depending on the case) victimless, nor does it rule out the possibility of changing for the good after doing so. Many people learn from not exactly being exposed, usually for stupid crap.
Because even if a Catholic priest only ever molested one child and never did it again, his not being turned in to the authorities by his superiors means he got away with molesting a child. The molester and his superiors would all be complicit in both the molestation of a child and the subsequent cover-up.
If you mean "complicit" by helping the person get away after the fact, then "accessory after the fact" would be the better argument here. Even though, none of this changes the fact that people can change for the good without being caught after the fact. This isn't to say that we should let people get away with bad things, as my argument was situational.
But if you knew that asshole had a history of doing what they did, you knew they were likely to repeat that behavior, and you brought them in anyway? That’s on you.
Some of your other argument sounded a little different if I remembered right. But anyway, one of my points is that there is no difference between trusting an "innocent" person than a person with a history. If he does it again while trusting, it's either on both, or none. It can be hard to tell what is "likely".
But the existence of a pattern of bad behavior, regardless of any alleged reform since said behavior, will always make people wary.
What people think doesn't change the reality here. I was basing off logic, and realism, not people's feelings, even if it's understandable.
You made a shitty point in a shitty way.
Mine wasn't a shitty point. Also make sure to join the army if you can. You KNOW there is a war going on against Ukraine, and if you don't, then you're a complicit, like those who who you think is a complicit for wanting to stay out of politics involving BLM.
Does Nintendo even have a right to take down the existence of such a manual in the archive alone? Destroying such history like that is not a human right and I certainly think it's absurd if there is no copyright limitation that defends such preservation. Destroying such thing clearly damages the point of Copyright too.
Also I feel like sharing such manual needs to be fair use judging by the situation.
Honestly, I was often focused on the morality side. I started with showing that cancel culture exists (which was mainly referring to the moral issue side). I do believe I should of said it better however though.
You’re complicit if you see people doing shitty things and don’t raise your voice about it. Or to put it another way: You’re complicit in a racist act if, say, a white person yells the N-word at a Black person and you don’t say or do anything to that white person about their bullshit—even if you would never say the word or think racist thoughts yourself. (I’m not saying it’d be right to punch that racist prick in the face for their bullshit…but I’m not saying it’d be wrong, either.)
But he already said it. I am not sure what he is doing now. I'm not obligated to try to bring in criticism every time I witness something hateful that already been done, even if he's likely going to do so again. I never, in this case, was the causation in the first place, so I have no duty do anything special of that unless I am required by law. Same goes for the millions of other Americans who moved on. Going back at the BLM thing, this was more about not exactly knowing who is planning here and there despite likelihood. If you say I'm a complicit anyway, then you're saying that to billions of people in the world.
If you knew the person was abusive in the past and showed no signs of remorse for it, but you let them into your community anyway? Yes, you’d be responsible for letting them abuse people in your community.
Think of the Catholic Church’s child abuse scandals: The higher-ups kept shuffling priests to different churches even though said higher-ups knew those priests had abused, and would likely continue abusing, young children. Those higher-ups were responsible for letting child rape continue in their churches because they knew it was happening, they could’ve stopped it from happening, and they instead chose to let it keep happening.
I heard that a person not reoffending for many years is on itself evidence of change for the good. Your concept of that being "responsible" vs. trusting out of good faith due to some form evidence doesn't seem to show a physiological difference too. This isn't to say that I would let an offending pedophile person with a recent known past with no signs of strong improvement in, that would probably be reckless, I'm just making a point.
Trusting someone with a known pattern of bad behavior means trusting them not to do this thing they’ve done before (likely multiple times) despite the evidence saying they’ll likely do it again. Trusting someone with no known pattern of bad behavior means trusting them not to do a thing they haven’t been known to do before. Your being unable to grasp this difference is your problem, not mine.
In the end, you're still responsible in a way for trusting the person into a place you control. Some people act like trusting an innocent person is always better just because of "innocent" even though sometimes a person with a bad past could be safer than some "innocent" people. This was part of the reason why I made that comparison.
Not really. Our prison system being shitty is no excuse for keeping people in said system for the rest of their lives.
I'm against LWOP with no exception, I was just trying to make a point about the whole responsibility argument.
And yeah I know I'm about 3 days late. But if you do reply, I might try to end it with a basic message about the whole enabler thing.
I guess I'll say that I probably don't fully understand, but I can try to form my own take and see how you can answer it if you don't mind. Morally speaking, it's very possible that some good things that originated from a bad thing can still be left alone. Popular super hero stories only exist because of horrible crimes in real life. Obviously, we do not need to stop the elements of a fictional legal story, let alone the fact that it's a huge part of the foundation of it because it came from it. For a regular copyright infringement or 'piracy' case of a copyrighted art. Some artists might of gotten inspired by an art found on a plagiarism page. It sucks the artist gave a promotion to it, but it doesn't really seem to logically make sense to go after the reaction to it that was formed into a new good art (e.g. idea gained from morally wrong place, artist used the idea in head and made new original harmless art with it) after the fact. Like yeah, without it, the type of art the artist created by hand (due to the idea found through the plagiarized infringement page) would not exist in this case, but we can still separate the after fact in many cases even though bad source prior helped made it possible. So in the case of generated visual AI, whereas using the tool did fuel the stolen art tool even when only trying to find a spark, the artist using the spark and making a legally new art via drawing out of a new and more original creation could be left alone. Artist best not to use harmful tool in the future, but no need to destroy any good that formed after it. That was one of my main points. It's possible a harm could be extended by a bad source, but I see no logical way to justify the idea that harm is expended to many examples of these three cases. So a poison tree made non-poison fruit in some cases. Of course, it's also possible for an artist to use gen visual AI, get a specific certain result and just use that (thus actually using the AI "art") or imitate too much of the AI image (from scratch, so human art technically) but still copy too much of it increasing the risk of copying an original copyrighted picture such AI trained on. That might be poison off a poison tree. For anyone reading, I'm probably embarrassing myself if I'm still misunderstanding the comment...
I'm sorry but it really sounds like you are a reactionist. You are even trying to decide one thing is just slop when you could say that against a lot of pre-gen ai stuff today. "The difference is in the intent. People who..." No it's not. Maybe you aren't aware but a lot of "see what happens" also includes slopped results based off robot commands but more simple. There is 100% no difference between downloading three copyrighted images, putting it in a fancy paint program, using a few commands or programs to then less predicted result in non-sense to see what it's like and get an idea from the slop it produces, than using the fancier more robotic special robot (gen ai visual) and seeing what happens then get an idea from it. BOTH of which uses copyrighted images in the first place, where one simply has some extra get-random commands and likely branch commands. (Note: yes I'm aware it's not as simple more of that but it's in the same realm of random slop anyway). "The whole point of generative AI, at least according to the assholes who evangelize it, is that it’s supposed to give you exactly what you want. ..." For the first part, that claim isn't true, at least not all the time. Generative ai can produced less predicted results and some people will use it so to see what it's like to get an idea faster than going to Google and spending hours to find mixes to see. And why would I use the forest thing? Maybe because it's faster, less risky (well in terms of online researching I guess?) and it can easily make weird variations that that no other artists did? I've seen a video where there was an ai video predicting where Mario goes in one of those slop video non-sense, clearly an experimental type of thing and it produced many weird things that not even the original video uploaded knew if im assuming right. Proving my point. It doesn't give you "exactly what you want", at least not all the time. Plus some people may want to use it to enjoy content faster without having to feel with visually trying to get it manually but I would prefer the licensed type thing I mentioned. "I’ve already got one argument going with you here and I’m not about to get off on a tangent, so I’ll put a pin on this point with the following sentence: If you think stealing other people’s hard work to transform it into a digital pastiche of their work and claim you created “art” is a morally righteous act, you both underestimate my hatred for copyright and overestimate how willing I am to conflate copyright infringement with plagiarism." Im talking about getting an idea from a tool that uses some pictures without permission, getting idea from it, forming my own thoghts about it, then DRAWING or modeling it myself from my own experience about said idea. Thats 100 fucking percent no morally different than what millions of artists do with other peoples works in paint programs, including less predicted slop that some editing tools do actually do (which BTW is transformative fair use sometimes iirc.). BOTH the HUMAN REACTIONS to it AFTER the fact are the same. "It is doing that, and it still wouldn’t be good even if it wasn’t." And who are you to decide that if it wasnt? People have a right to use a certain tools that isn't violating anyone's right (the scenario I'm thinking of). If someone wants to use say an visual ai generator off say lawful public domain and lawful special licensed pictures for harmless stuff, its as much as a right as someone deciding to not pay a specific artist and go watch certain baseball game or use that public domain art found online as a reference instead. "Whether someone treats my opinion of generative AI seriously is wholly irrelevant to the fact that I have the right to share" ...yet you are trying to be a moral dictator against an artist's right to adapt an idea that originated from ai slop to have their own harmless take that actually is human after the fact. Just as much as it's an artists right to adapt a prog. generated texture or a weird rock formation found in nature instead of going to a concept artist and theb paying them. In the end, it really feels like you are selectively trying to decide that one human experienced based off a hen ai slop doesn't count while leaving all the other ones that is already way different, whereas some anti digital editing people back in 1980s would scream about and make up more made up fallacy ignorant excuses about it. As a reminder too, I think I'm more pissed at people who goes against an artist adapting an idea that already came from slop. Like even if me (scenario wise) using the tool that was aiding crap was bad in the first place, its still my right to at least adapt the idea that already came from it, and have my own creative take to it. If im in the "wrong" in, then you are in the wrong for fair use transformative works in a digital program because its not as authentic as painting or some crap. Note it's possible I missed some stuff from your comments so I apologize for missing anything.
I feel like you are ignorant of how our existing culture works to an extent. Millions of works did not come from 100% human hand drawn art, digital or physical. Many of them came from a human experiencing a variety of many things that isnt 100% always crafted by a human, let alone some way less or more. Many humans also experienced learning differently than each other and that INCLUDES modern digital mashup transformation with "see what happens" tools too, way before gen visual AI existed. Some of these experiments are also similar to spitting out stuff randomly. Photoshop splashing, prog. texture or 3D landscape generation experimenting, throwing physical multiple human art into a cluster to see what happens, and some digital with simple digital art tools to see what comes up, accidents, many more things that don't come from a traditional manual use of a physical paintbrush, via digital and even physical world (but not as much). Hell, most works are a combination of things found in nature that isn't created by humans in case I need to make that point. And yet here you are saying that the moment there is a few special computer code making less predictable formations or variants by copying other works first (like what millions do without permission in digital for many years with less but more simple less predictable (e.g. photoshop experimental mashing splashes)) ways, you say it doesn't count. Nope. A human taking an idea learned from a less human the moment it's from a special robot, it all doesn't count. None of it. Let me make an example. Say I used gen visual AI, I copy other peoples works without permission (which isn't itself wrong because copying isn't theft so it always depends beyond that) via some special command. I type in "show me a dark forest", it gives me some variations of it. I of course get what I want to the base and not much skill itself, but then I see some weird combinations or variations that gives me an idea. I then take the idea in my head and I make my own forest with real current human skill, I make a story with more ideas but from me more, then add my own original art with origianl enough shapes by scratch. Beyond that I make a whole series about it. In this scenario, I am 100%, the human, the good old fashion misanthropic too, had an experience with while a weird less human result (naturally no different than discovering a weird rock or pro. gen seed texture result) in the first place but came up with my own conclusions, made up my own creative intake, and with my own will, added creatived stories beyond it. EXACTLY the same as downloading a few copyrighted pictures directly, loading them in photoshop, and experimenting with them in a see what happens way that is transformative (maybe even the legal fair use kind), and get an idea and end result do the same thing. It makes no logical sense to say both are different in this example other than the problems I already mentioned but that has nothing to do with this specific argument. Ai gen "art" isn't always a lazy learn 1-1 imitation lack of skill, lack of education, direction and then do nothing. There is also the fact that ai gen visual can also promote original shapes and one might redraw that (but not enough to be 1-1 with copyrighted material) and use as an asset but still have creative control beyond it like public domain of human made and non-human made (e.g. texture that was seed generated and released as cc0?). Also many artists do adapt existing styles instead of coming up with their own but makes new things with it. It feels like you are ignoring other types of artists when you mention the style thing that way? Like I said, there is an issue where the current tool is being feed on, and corporations are using it for profit more directly with less human artists entirely, and if using it for inspiration is fueling the same thing indirectly then yeah, that isnt good either (the usage itself), and it's morally better off to use a more legal licensed and legal public domain training, but that doesn't mean you, I, or anyone gets to tell legit human crafting artists in the final part of the product of that game is somehow fake, ai slop itself, or "tainted". Like Jesus...
Let's remember the history of people learning from other people's works. People has learned non-sense formations, including many lesser human results (hence mostly non-sense). This includes photoshop manipulation, splashing around other peoples art to see what happens, mistakes in modifying, and some others both through digital and non-digital outside of "gen-AI" visual audio. Modern Gen-AI simply mixes up other peoples works, and can make weird formations. The difference is a that its another angle leading to the same discovery (like the others) that alone real human can take, and then form their own ideas of the formations and put their own human connection, redraw and result in a new 100% human work. Thus by definition, it's a human work from human experience at the end result. If you are seriously trying to argue that artists who worked real hard, to make money for their family, should just be seen as wasting their time or that their works are "poisoned" just because of an idea coming from something that may not have been so great, then you are just making a personal excuse to just selectively call out living artists for your own twisted opinion. Next let's call out thousands of artists who felt deeply inspired by a source that was technically pirated in a way that was bad, like a song downloaded improperly or some crap, and stop them from progressing their dreams of hard work for legal works ideal wise. BTW, I'm talking about works that are original enough like taking an idea from a specific result but forming your own original formation over it lawfully. Again, we can debate wether using the current genAI is really itself fueling a problem so uhh, maybe best to avoid it (not because without permission as copying isn't theft but because it might be fueling bad purposes too) even if the purpose is innocent, but that doesn't mean we should go after a transformative and harmless human formation just because it came from an idea sourced from a bad place after the fact. Apologizes for any misunderstanding of your comment btw.
You need to remember that even without gen visual AI, humans had already discovered non-sense formations or ideas that were not manually crafted with full intention by another human but was able to make it a form of art via inspiration. Transforming it. This already happened with photoshop manipulation, prog. generation (think of landscapes, like Minecraft), and some included these splashes and weird formations to push with a lot of copyrighted works without permission including manual editing with transformation. So if someone used a few extra robot codes by using a robot to experiment with mashing copyrighted pictures together to form a new idea which is then controlled and transformed, I don't see this as any different than all that and just see another example of human experience and creativity. That being said, the current genAI does have problems but if she used basic forms to only get an idea, they used real blood to transform it, it's still human art in the after fact. Even if using it is fueling the current tool fueling bad actors (so ugh best not use that again), the end after result separately is still proof it's creative so that proves it can be useful for creative aim itself. But it's better off if it was using lawful public domain and lawful license images first at the same time.
Grammar
Some of the words here are not spelled right. I want to point out that I was on phone, wrote a lot, and spell error checking here seems different than what I'm used to. I want to edit but it wouldn't let me so I apologize for some of crappy grammar here. Haha
Artist and good idea exploration
I believe the current use of gen ai is mainly bad in terms of direct use because of the fact that it uses copyrighted images and despite transformative possibility, the direct usage is too risky and heard some do use identical copies, creating a massive risk. Plus this usage without permission of the artists do help replace them. However when it comes to using the tool to explore ideas and then having actual humans make their own creative intake of the idea, this seems morally equal to common history of thousands of artists downloading copyrighted images to edit, without permission, and then transforming them private and get new good ideas from it, from computer tools not 100% human crafting either. The only time I could find this usage bad in terms the ethics of permission and usage, is if using it fuels the program itself whereas such fueling benefits malicious use from other people somehow but I don't know if it works like that. Think of a person going to a stolen artwork page of a harmless work itself, and while taking inspiration from the work itself is harmless, the interaction with the infringer is giving more demand to the infringer which is bad. However despite all that, some of the arguments from some of the anti-genAI folks are rotten to the core, based off falacies, reeks of massive hypocrisy, and are based off made up moral ideogy that goes avainst actual rights that exist. One notable tweet was arguing that merely using ai no matter the purpose is bad just because it was based off works without permission, then cited moral rights and copyright. One person pointed out the fact that people often used many images all the time without permission outside of genAI but then anti genAI person said in the lines of "Uhh, that's different because I like that there is human connection experience with how you get inspired."...despite the fact that the foundation of copyright and moral rights make no distinction, let alone the fact that photoshop edits are already less human in some way. Another horrible argument, and this was a dangerous horrible argument too, was that someone in the name of arvalis (guy who makes "real life" pokemon) argued that if actual human beings made 100 percent human made art influenced off an idea that came from an genAI in the first place, then the final product is still using generated ai, just because it influenced them at some point... even though the final work is based off human experienced and human made art in the last place. Same person argued you are not using copyrighted work if you made it by scratch (without ai) making him hypocritical too. This argument implied that artists who worked and gave all their blood, wasted all of their time and that their hard work is all a waste of time, the moment they are "tainted" with AI in some influence inspiration in the first place. This was one of the most disgusting arguments I've ever seen in probably my life and it's sad it came from him. Like if he wanted to argue that using genAI is bad because it creates less distraction of finding concept artists (though there are some problems with that argument) but left the after fact alone, I wouldn't be as upset. The argument saying it creates a distraction is flawed too because public domain, and inspired laqful works also helps create distractions, same with having a crazy creative brain from indirect memory of certain works without remember names of who. Another argument I've seen is that we don't need genAI to get good. This argument misses the fact that it can still help with creative ideas in some cases and faster too. So that is another weird argument. There are concerns about generated AI art but some of these anti generated AI art folks has gone so down in the barrel to the point of promoting harassment mob against checks notes, actual human artists. It's gone to the point of telling other artists that their hard work doesn't count, or doing something no different than lots of traditions is bad, or just because it's a robot helping them. This isn't ethical. This isn't fighting for artists, this is just discouraging artists like her, and some others from making their own interpretation and being creative due to how they got some ideas. Current AI art has a lot of problems and I would rather make it where it only uses lawful public domain material, and lawful AI license art, and have a credit list each result, but some of these people are out of their minds and are not fully ethical. Like wow.
What about a lawful game that could be played offline but the consumer knew they were told that they can just "legally" revoke the license at will and possibly be sued from reselling or playing the game? Or be told they cannot have access to certain files in the privacy of their home? Should the practice be allowed for lawful software just because of what the consumer was told first? I would argue no unless maybe the license had a fixed date within 3 year date and even then people should have a right to preserve lawful files. Also I think this was more about legal ability from the consumer's end rather than forcing a publisher like Ubisoft to actually keep the servers running. Not so sure. Though I wouldn't mind having some regulation to force certain publishers to give a refund if a legal server got shut down too soon.
Revenge isn't justice. There isn't even evidence of free will and even then it's just hypocritical in terms of protecting life. Criminals with no exception (a whataboutism type argument here would be perverted) need to be fixed and then get a normal life back and it's proven that, as long as done good enough, that the way Norway prisons do it, mainly helps create less victims. Humanity shouldn't be taken away.
Stuff like this is why we need more better and legal games like maybe Palworld. I personally hope the Palworld Twitter indirectly shame the Pokemon company for disrespecting many of their fans kinda like what Sega did to Nintendo if I recall right. That would be gold.
Actually Copyright law made it possible to own certain lawful software but still not own the Copyright to it. There is also first sale doctrine and RAM doctrine. The concept of "only getting a license" isn't true unless you agree to legally enforceable terms making it so. Certain copies of Software doesn't come with a contract doing so and even if you were getting a license in a payment of a fee, it would probably be hard to enforce "revocable at will" in some places, especially if it's silence on revocability, assuming paying money for it counts as a consideration. Though I was mainly focusing on non-cloud here. I'm not sure about online-only cloud involving certain services.
Contract Law Reform?
"It would be one thing if this content was ripped away and everyone on all sides realized that was a possibility." As nice as that would be, would it fix the main issue though? In this scenario, many would know what they are getting into but what about the concern of ownership and preservation for many software? Wouldn't it better if we have laws to not allow contract law to circumvent around ownership? One thing that could be very useful is to not only replace "purchase/buy" with "rent" there, but be required to have a fixed date too and have a rental cap to 3 years (to avoid another circumvention) for a single payment. That way Sony might likely use a real purchase option and the future of lawful ownership for many certain software can be legally obtained. That being said, I'm not too familiar about how this service works so I was thinking in terms of a legal enforceable kind. If this story is more about cloud based like Stadia then I'm not as sure. I keep hearing so many people talk about this story as "digital only future" as troubling so it made me assume this was focused on non-cloud mainly.
Uhhh
To be fair, there are a lot of people who prefer certain fictional characters over real life people, however honestly as long as it's not hurting anyone and isn't trying too, then it's morally not anyone's else's business. Forcing people to have babies would be a clear a violation of human rights anyway. lol Besides what I've said on here, the planet is over-populated in terms of nature judging by the stories of how so much life is being destroyed including extinction. It's better off to legally have more adoption available to the right kind of people who is open for it, and as one said, better immigration laws.
The reason why I mentioned it despite the 'purpose' of certain mod files is that I am curious if they can still go after certain Copyright free mod files itself because I am not so sure if Copyright law can suddenly extend to a lawful Copyright free asset file due to the specific purpose. There is also the purpose of those mod files that it's meant to mod some lawful thing someone own which makes me feel like it could feel like a form of fair use, assuming fair use can extend to that part of 106. If I handed someone a paintbrush to help them add a mustache to a Copyrighted Mickey Mouse painting, is the paintbrush itself copyright infringement? I find a law limiting the human right to innocently mod your own lawful game unfair, so I shouldn't ever feel bad for trying to find a legal way around it. If it truly is copyright infringement then I hope the law gets changed for the good then.
Some Point
I do understand the reason why there is a restriction on many derivative works is due to the chance a company might make it, but there is usually a strong chance the company might never make it showing that the law really needs to be changed and considering the restriction may stifle so much good creativity. I feel like many free good "sequels" of say many old games really need to be protected. Though this here is more akin of a moral argument and in hopes of a future court ruling in favor and maybe a chance of fair use for it anyway, but I'll keep this here anyway. There is a video on YouTube made by a lawyer giving his say on this PointCrow mess, and he seems to argue that any mod is derivative and is copyright infringement. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mo_AmQgSSqY But is he entirely right? What if a mod file itself contains no Copyrighted assets at all? That would probably mean not only it contains no Copyrighted code, but it might be hard to argue that it's derivative if the file itself clearly doesn't contain that even though it's meant to apply to a game (after downloading it for example). I also feel like it's not as "evil" as flat-out game distribution if the mod in question is very minor, barely mods the game as long as the game is not redistributed, and doesn't contain anything else that would be evil separately. I would find it kinda similar to taking a single frame snapshot of an entire classic Disney Mickey Mouse movie still Copyrighted. I also thought fair use might have a chance for some derivative works depending on the nature? If I purchase one of those Copyrighted paintings from a popular store, am I not allowed to paint over it over something I purchase in my own home? And finally, I thought the whole situation was more akin about his video content rather than the mod by itself? If someone made a "Spongebob" mod of Zelda, streamed it, was parody, review, and doesn't contain illegal content outside, then wouldn't the video itself have a bigger chance of fair use even if it's showcasing a derivative work, assuming fair use can apply to all parts of section 106 of Copyright.
Honestly I think true justice is about fixing criminals and then bringing them back into society. I've seen some documents about a prison in Norway that I think is about it. Heard that the way criminals are treated in prison in US generally creates more victims. I think the only payment that brings value beyond rehabilitating is certain amends, which can be good.
Once the Mario Copyright Extension Act gets announced, then it will be very accurate to say that Nintendo is the Disney of video games in general.
Sorry for like a longer wait. If you don't want to debate, you don't have to.
Yet how does me distancing myself make a difference? Getting "away with it" is on itself (at least, maybe depending on the case) victimless, nor does it rule out the possibility of changing for the good after doing so. Many people learn from not exactly being exposed, usually for stupid crap. If you mean "complicit" by helping the person get away after the fact, then "accessory after the fact" would be the better argument here. Even though, none of this changes the fact that people can change for the good without being caught after the fact. This isn't to say that we should let people get away with bad things, as my argument was situational. Some of your other argument sounded a little different if I remembered right. But anyway, one of my points is that there is no difference between trusting an "innocent" person than a person with a history. If he does it again while trusting, it's either on both, or none. It can be hard to tell what is "likely". What people think doesn't change the reality here. I was basing off logic, and realism, not people's feelings, even if it's understandable. Mine wasn't a shitty point. Also make sure to join the army if you can. You KNOW there is a war going on against Ukraine, and if you don't, then you're a complicit, like those who who you think is a complicit for wanting to stay out of politics involving BLM.Right?
Does Nintendo even have a right to take down the existence of such a manual in the archive alone? Destroying such history like that is not a human right and I certainly think it's absurd if there is no copyright limitation that defends such preservation. Destroying such thing clearly damages the point of Copyright too. Also I feel like sharing such manual needs to be fair use judging by the situation.
Honestly, I was often focused on the morality side. I started with showing that cancel culture exists (which was mainly referring to the moral issue side). I do believe I should of said it better however though.
But he already said it. I am not sure what he is doing now. I'm not obligated to try to bring in criticism every time I witness something hateful that already been done, even if he's likely going to do so again. I never, in this case, was the causation in the first place, so I have no duty do anything special of that unless I am required by law. Same goes for the millions of other Americans who moved on. Going back at the BLM thing, this was more about not exactly knowing who is planning here and there despite likelihood. If you say I'm a complicit anyway, then you're saying that to billions of people in the world. I heard that a person not reoffending for many years is on itself evidence of change for the good. Your concept of that being "responsible" vs. trusting out of good faith due to some form evidence doesn't seem to show a physiological difference too. This isn't to say that I would let an offending pedophile person with a recent known past with no signs of strong improvement in, that would probably be reckless, I'm just making a point. In the end, you're still responsible in a way for trusting the person into a place you control. Some people act like trusting an innocent person is always better just because of "innocent" even though sometimes a person with a bad past could be safer than some "innocent" people. This was part of the reason why I made that comparison. I'm against LWOP with no exception, I was just trying to make a point about the whole responsibility argument. And yeah I know I'm about 3 days late. But if you do reply, I might try to end it with a basic message about the whole enabler thing.