this post was submitted on 09 Aug 2025
111 points (100.0% liked)

technology

23905 readers
340 users here now

On the road to fully automated luxury gay space communism.

Spreading Linux propaganda since 2020

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] sodium_nitride@hexbear.net 37 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I want to see this lawsuit go somewhere simply because it will be good drama. I don't think the American state will actually torpedo it's "little baby child" (the child is very big though) because of some pesky small property owners.

Instead, the most that might come out of this will be trump doing and EO giving Ai companies the right to shoot whoever they want, or something like that.

[–] invo_rt@hexbear.net 27 points 4 days ago

Assuming this case goes somewhere and without looking into it at all, I assume what will happen will be what always happens. Big players like Disney will get carve outs to prevent their IP from being generated while every small artist will have their life's work vacuumed up.

[–] SerLava@hexbear.net 13 points 3 days ago

shocked-pikachu I stole everything and now everyone is suing me for stealing?

[–] Monstertruckenjoyer@hexbear.net 12 points 3 days ago

Stuck between our love of both copyright laws and unregulated tech growth. One of the biggest contradictions I've seen yet in the US

[–] Awoo@hexbear.net 22 points 4 days ago

They should use AI to write their defence and run their case in court.

[–] MLRL_Commie@hexbear.net 24 points 4 days ago (8 children)

You know what, I'm gonna do a quick rant. I fucking hate this fake AI shit as much as the next person, or more than the next person, but I don't see much engagement here or anywhere with a fundamental question we should answer. The AI industry is fighting against copyright, which, up until like 5 years ago, was a Marxist position. Arguing that Copyright was fundamentally a method of seeking rents and such. Of course, mechanical and now digital reproduction make this situation even worse for artists, but is it our fundamental fight right now to protect artists from copyright infringement (and lost rent) or to destroy copyright in general. It would be difficult and painful in the short term for those that rely on copyright, but society would think of some way to otherwise compensate (we have to believe this is possible, otherwise how will it work once we shift to a socialist society) and the AI industry will fail anyways (because of other contradictions). So should we not tactically Support this AI fight against copyright?

I don't think this is the end point of this argument, and I see the complexities (for example, what if ONLY the AI industry gets exemptions and for the important stuff, copyright only gets stronger?). But I have seen no engagement with this point

[–] BynarsAreOk@hexbear.net 23 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (2 children)

The AI industry is fighting against copyright, which, up until like 5 years ago, was a Marxist position. It would be difficult and painful in the short term

I fundamentaly disagree with this. You're making an enemy of my enemy argument.

This first point then is just you casualy washing it away as just "painful in the short term" is completely blind to our reality. The short term is already hell and you as a socialist are proposing even more hell onto the working class for some dream pie in the sky move that its better in the long term. Who actualy cares about listening to this? It would make you look like a clown and its not worth ceding ground to liberals on this, why are we allowing libs the opportunity to larp as being concerned about worker rights? Such an easy opportunity for us to organize among these communities thrown away for nothing.

And I'm being generous, these people will just look at you and see the same jackass right wing rethoric of "woke DEI college students with art degrees should have just learned how to code" which has been extremely harmful in the real world to a lot of people, people who would be radicalized towards a further socialist position, yet we shall take almost the same stance? Fuck them for the greater good? If you do this, be smart and do it for something bigger, copyright law is not that important as to let you antagonize people like this.

You realy realy realy can't underestimate how even just saying it would be "painful" to the working class isn't convincing under the current circumstances. You need to provide a concrete theory and an ideology of how this will benefit them and I personally can't find myself making this argument. The best we got to show for is checks notes maybe the AI grift bubble will end anytime between 2-10 years from now while they lose their jobs and the planet gets destroyed?

the AI industry will fail anyways (because of other contradictions). So should we not tactically Support this AI fight against copyright?

This is just a bet. We sit here still waiting for said bubble to pop, it could take 2 or 10 years who knows. Failure as you should know is relative, every previous failure could be said in the same terms, look how finance bros lost in 2008 or how cryptobros lost in 2023 when bitcoin was at 20k.

But I think worst of all is that this doesn't consider the actual real cost of AI, with every new data center being built we head towards the climate change abyss. It should be a condemnation, we do not have the time to be playing 4d chess "strategic support" for an industry that got probably the biggest and worst external costs in human history only second to the oil industry.

This argument when it existed 5 years ago did not consider the current worsening global situation. As things get worse we need to pick the important fights and be more radical, tactical choices that requires considerable loss for little relative gain is just nonsense.

I propose the point shouldn't be AI will fail anyways, no it should be how can we make AI fail as fast as possible and if it means supporting copyright so be it.

I see the complexities (for example, what if ONLY the AI industry gets exemptions and for the important stuff, copyright only gets stronger?)

If you understand this then surely there was never any "tactical fight" anyway. Indeed they'll compromise with the entertainment industry while simultaneously fucking over any sort of independent worker rights and privacy. Some new copyright law will be created and it will just be the same but worse, more violent, more oppressive towards workers while they make deals among themselves how to keep pumping the bubble.

Any other consideration leads to this same conclusion, either we will get weaker copyright in reality or not and its clear we wont. You can spend hours and much effort considering this or you could've taken the simple side of workers rights anyway. Ultimately copyright benefits capitalists just as much but this is a false choice.

This fight exists within the context of supporting the AI industry and they're by far the bigger evil here, as in destroying the planet and humanity level of evil.

I should add as we're seeing the with payment processor censorship stuff, this is so clear and obvious to me, like they'll turn on the hypocritical censorship and twist the law in their favor, there is no benefit in supporting anti-copyright right now when the AI industry is full of the same pro-Trump shills that want to censor and control the working class anyway. There is no victory in sight even in the best case.

[–] MLRL_Commie@hexbear.net 3 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

I wrote a big rant but it wasn't nice so I deleted it. Good luck fighting for scraps alongside the Petit-Bourgeois instead of seeing any bigger picture. And good luck solving climate change by fighting a specific instance of capitalism's destruction instead of looking for ways to ultimately end the forces pushing for any of the myriads of replacement methods of destruction. I'm open to any ideas for how to advance our cause, just bring one instead of whatever this was

[–] zedcell@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Newsflash you PB jackass, workers haven't owned the fruits of their labour the entire time. I do creative work as a wage labourer and I don't own shit of the output I produce. Artists can suck a fat one if they think they can get out of being proletarianised like all the rest of us.

[–] MLRL_Commie@hexbear.net 3 points 3 days ago

Thank you, I thought I was losing it reading that Copyright was needed for proletarians.

[–] LupineTroubles@hexbear.net 25 points 4 days ago (1 children)

They are only fighting it insofar to protect their own profits. They happily trained all data on libgen and archive.org for free and now that most LLM models have that data the push to block access to such sites intensified. When it comes to these things laws are always weaponized.

[–] MLRL_Commie@hexbear.net 4 points 3 days ago

They're weaponized against us, yes, but forcing Bourgeois elements to weaponized it against one another is a possible strategic win. None of the bad shit and bourgeois-lib faux-law stuff surprises me, that's why we need to think of the best ways to win anyways, not just fatalistically say that it's bad

[–] hellinkilla@hexbear.net 15 points 3 days ago

Shoplifting from a grocery store is fine. communists would create abolish privately owned grocery stores and socialize the whole chain of production.

This is like 2 guys going through the whole neighborhood, taking every calorie of food from every kitchen, grinding it up into a milkshake and selling some of it back at high prices. And closing the grocery stores.

[–] NuraShiny@hexbear.net 16 points 4 days ago (5 children)

The position was never "individual artists should not own their work", the position was "Perpetual copyright is bad". You act like that's the same when it absolutely isn't.

AI isn't touching Disney because those companies know Disney has teeth. So they copy from all the individual artists who depend on their art to survive and act like that's not bad. I have seen people on this site argue for that actually, because 'it's like pirating a movie'. To which I say: Fuck off. It's not the same because one case takes from a rich as god company while the other takes directly from a worker. Sure, the worker might be providing furry porn but so what? They are fulfilling that societal demand and should be fairly compensated for it. If these AIs were taking exclusively corporate art and shitting out their slop, I would have no problem with that.

[–] MLRL_Commie@hexbear.net 7 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (11 children)

I'm specifically not making a moral claim. I'm making a strategic claim. I can agree morally with you, but thats a different subject. The point is that these contradictions are there and building and we should choose the side that strategically helps. Is your argument that our fighting for artists will lead to better chance to succeed in bringing about socialism? I'm willing to hear such an argument but am entirely unconvinced that it's not just Petit-Bourgeois

load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Euergetes@hexbear.net 18 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I don't think "AI" is meaningfully opposed to copyright, they want to collect rent for this horseshit.

they're only opposed to traditional copyright insofar as it could make future profits difficult. in the "bribe the judges" era we live in I'm sure disney could re-copyright steamboat willie if they wanted

[–] MLRL_Commie@hexbear.net 6 points 4 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

But that means Disney comes into direct conflict with AI, right?

[–] Euergetes@hexbear.net 19 points 4 days ago (1 children)

of course not. law binds us but does not protect us.

there is no law for the oligarchs and we need to stop thinking we are bound by those laws anyway.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] semioticbreakdown@hexbear.net 10 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I think for me it just seemed like they would just get an exception while clamping down harder outside of it, so yeah not really relevant to the broader fight against concepts like "intellectual property". It would just end up as a further tool of consolidation, where businesses can take whatever they want for unspecified purposes like training AI, and actual creators of art and literature get fucked over repeatedly. The AI industry is fighting to further rent-seek on the distillation of social labor while being exempt themselves from the inter-business rentseeking via copyright.

[–] MLRL_Commie@hexbear.net 7 points 4 days ago

I agree that this is how it would first happen, but I think that in the long term this will cause giants of capitalism to fight and be a useful part of a socialist strategy. Your last sentence describes exactly the contradiction which we have to deal with, but realize that it's just postponing another fight later regardless of which side we support. I tend to think fucking with the sanctity of copyright is more important for this long term strategy

[–] Le_Wokisme@hexbear.net 9 points 4 days ago (2 children)

(we have to believe this is possible, otherwise how will it work once we shift to a socialist society)

in the extreme, sufficient universal social programs could support some amount of socially unnecessary labor like art nobody but the artist wants. direct compensation isn't strictly necessary.

i think a socialist society can do better than that, but hey maybe the town from footloose could achieve socialism without a cultural revolution.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] hotcouchguy@hexbear.net 4 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Means of production coming into conflict with the mode of production

[–] MLRL_Commie@hexbear.net 3 points 3 days ago

Could you elaborate a bit more? I think we are on the same page but can't tell exactly

[–] darkcalling@hexbear.net 22 points 4 days ago

Ownership of the labor replacement mcguffin is hereby transferred from the upstart techno-capitalists to the old industrial-entertainment-finance bourgeoisie that own Hollywood, book publishing, music, etc on the basis of copyright infringement.

New owners: Right so we're going to run AI fairly. Which means paying creators (ourselves obviously) and don't think we'll forget artists either, they'll get literal pennies on their lifetime of work for its use in the ~~labor replacement~~ ahaha I mean cough slop machine since we own their work and machine.

There is no AI going away because of this I think. It's either seized outright by old interests who rob the new with glee or the new interests are forced to give a huge amount, maybe the lion's share even of the money to the old interests. Sure the whole thing could be torpedoed for a bit and government would panic and dump money on the old interests and now owners and gate-keepers of AI to get them to start it up again. Might be too late for NVIDIA's stock price and the stock market overall but I don't think the US is just going to let its AI industry collapse and let China walk away with it. I mean sure they could go with the "China steals everything, they stole our stuff" racism they've been pushing forever but that's only good for propaganda to the rubes, it doesn't stop China from advancing and the Pentagon from shitting its pants.

Quite possible all this does is take down all public-facing models. Both open and free and paid. And what remains are privately contracted models negotiated and used mostly in secret for the US intelligence-military-police state to use all sold by companies with the names of villains or villainous things from fiction run by Thiel and friends which could be seen as acceptable though I think a lot of porkies would be really, really upset at their magic labor replacement machine, their great dream being snatched away from them and wouldn't go so quietly.

[–] Bay_of_Piggies@hexbear.net 23 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Their main argument is that it would be a lot of work to go through with this, so we shouldn't lol

[–] ghosts@hexbear.net 16 points 4 days ago

lathe-of-heaven eminent domain now applies to copyright and the production of AI is considered proper compensation to copyright owners

[–] combat_brandonism@hexbear.net 19 points 4 days ago
[–] corvidenjoyer@hexbear.net 16 points 4 days ago

Despite the shill article the comment section is saying the same things we are.

porky-scared-flipped artificial-intelligence porky-point

[–] Riffraffintheroom@hexbear.net 16 points 4 days ago
[–] Skeleton_Erisma@hexbear.net 15 points 4 days ago
[–] Rom@hexbear.net 13 points 4 days ago
[–] Denjin@feddit.uk 11 points 4 days ago

Let's see how their LawyerLMs deal with this one

[–] Euergetes@hexbear.net 10 points 4 days ago
load more comments
view more: next ›