Flippanarchy
Flippant Anarchism. A lighter take on social criticism with the aim of agitation.
Post humorous takes on capitalism and the states which prop it up. Memes, shitposting, screenshots of humorous good takes, discussions making fun of some reactionary online, it all works.
This community is anarchist-flavored. Reactionary takes won't be tolerated.
Don't take yourselves too seriously. Serious posts go to !anarchism@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Rules
-
If you post images with text, endeavour to provide the alt-text
-
If the image is a crosspost from an OP, Provide the source.
-
Absolutely no right-wing jokes. This includes "Anarcho"-Capitalist concepts.
-
Absolutely no redfash jokes. This includes anything that props up the capitalist ruling classes pretending to be communists.
-
No bigotry whatsoever. See instance rules.
-
This is an anarchist comm. You don't have to be an anarchist to post, but you should at least understand what anarchism actually is. We're not here to educate you.
-
No shaming people for being anti-electoralism. This should be obvious from the above point but apparently we need to make it obvious to the turbolibs who can't control themselves. You have the rest of lemmy to moralize.
Join the matrix room for some real-time discussion.
Banner by @Val@anarchist.nexus
view the rest of the comments
Did your last line betray your use of AI?
I haven't used any AI. This is traced over the https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/c/anarchism banner. That banner was generated, like most db0's comms.
But I have wondered about doing this to images generated myself. I think it's an interesting counter-argument to the "AI" hardliners. If I claim no ownership of the generated output or even my own work based on that output is it still stealing? And if the image was generated in a climate-friendly manner, like through AI Horde or Ecosia, is it still problematic?
No such thing as 'stealing' when it comes to generative AI output. AI output cannot be copyrighted at all. It's all free for the taking.
Fixed it for you. Copyright violations are not stealing. That includes creating unauthorized derivative works.
For generative AI it's even more meaningless because it can't be copyrighted.
If I steal a bunch of handmade jewelry, cut it up and fuse it all together into a sculpture, then give that sculpture away, it's still theft. If the recipient knows it was made with stolen jewelry, that makes them an accomplice.
Just because GenAI output can't be copyrighted doesn't mean its output isn't still theft.
Copying is not theft:
https://archive.org/details/CopyingIsNotTheft
For archival and preservation purposes? I agree. For circumventing an artist's livelihood? Eat shit.
This is a really dumb analogy because if you steal a bunch of jewelry, then the jewelry is gone and the original owner doesn't have it anymore.
But if you steal AI 'art', the original owner still has it.
There's a difference between stealing and copying, and that difference is whether you're depriving the original owner of the thing.
And from a whole different angle:
'Stealing' implies ownership. But the original 'owner' doesn't actually own the output of AI in the first place. It wasn't "handmade" -- it was made by a computer algorithm. You can't steal from someone who doesn't own the objects in the first place.
This applies to all art equally. Human made as well. If you aren't depriving them of the original you aren't stealing.
You can steal a painting, you can't steal a picture posted online.
Fine, if you want to be pedantic: if you make reusable molds of handmade jewelry without the artists' permission, then you proceed to make new jewelry from the parts, you still stole the original design. Likewise, AI copying artists' artwork to reproduce its parts is theft. It doesn't matter if they still have the originals, because the originals weren't free to copy in the first place.
It's theft, and being annoyed that I didn't create a perfect analogy doesn't change that fact. And if you want to talk deprivation, you are depriving the original artist of their rights to monetize their work (notice I said "rights," not ability).
Also, I never said you were stealing from the AI; you are an accessory to theft of the original artwork if you are using models trained on stolen artwork.
Still not theft. Merely copyright infringement at best.
Oh, "merely." I'm sure all the artists who weren't given the opportunity to opt out and are currently having their work reproduced at scale feel so much better about that legal distinction.
You realize we also host !piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com here, right?
Yep, I'm aware. And just like anarchy, I don't agree that piracy should be applied without exception. Stealing from the common person ≠ stealing from billionaires or mega corporations.
I know there are some pirates who do not make such exceptions, but I think they're wrong, and their behavior is indistinguishable from corporations'.
Stealing from artists is stealing from the poor class, whether that's intentional copyright infringement (especially since AI companies know artists rarely have the money to fight back) or total theft. And the wealthy are more than happy to see us do their dirty work by hurting each other.
Again, copying isn't stealing.
If it's to reproduce it at scale, yes it is.
You can't just redefine words to fit your sensibilities
Neither can you. Copying someone's copywritten work is IP theft; in actuality, it's not just stealing the work but the artistic style of artists, which is far worse.
And since you seem intent on hanging your argument on copying, here's evidence that copyright infringement is a form of IP Theft:
Continuing to act like GenAI, specifically its current iteration and regarding who controls it, isn't a theft and plagiarism machine is just pro-billionaire claptrap. That's not an anarchist stance, that's being distracted by an oligarch's shiny, dangling keys.
Says who?
Every law on the subject deals with "infringement", not "theft".
Copyright is a state-mandated monopoly on reproducing a specific creative work. Violating the state's rules about that monopoly is not "theft".
To actually have IP theft, you'd have to use some nefarious means to acquire ownership of the IP, taking it away from the artist.
If your friend made an artwork, but before they published it, you took it to the copyright office and had the copyright registered in your name ... now that would be IP "theft". You actually stole the IP from someone and deprived them of that IP by doing so.
I agree.
Wrong, because you are operating from a non-capitalistic mindset. The artist is not suddenly able to reap the benefits of socialism or communism simply because you wish the economic system to be different. We can distinguish between public, private, and personal property all we want, but they're nonetheless still unrealized concepts. The artist must still eat, and depriving them of their work by feeding it into a plagiarism machine is not a step towards tearing the old system down; it is in direct support of it.
So you can handwave and be a legalese pedant all you want, but the reality is that copying art in this current economic system directly deprives the artist of their livelihood. Sounds like theft to me.
ETA: if you don't care about artists, then just say that. At least it would be honest.
But you're not depriving them of their work. They still have their work.
What you're maybe depriving them of is the ability to sell their work.
Wow, what a great distinction. All the artists have been fighting for nothing.
That's not what I've been saying. The whole time, I'm just trying to get you to see the distinction and get you to realize that "stealing" and "theft" are not the correct words to use to describe what is being done.
Words mean things, and standing up for artists doesn't excuse hyperbolic twisting of language.
Okay, then what is Identity Theft? You're just copying someone's identity (perhaps even multiple times) and then acting like them, right?
Or is it just Identity Infringement?
Identity theft is mostly a misnomer as well, yes. It's more accurately called 'impersonation' or just plain 'fraud'. (And you'll find that "identity theft" itself isn't a term that's actually used much in the legal system. Just like "IP theft", it's mostly a pop culture term, not a technical legal term.)
It's just copyright infringement. "ip theft" isn't a thing. Ergo It's not stealing, it's violating copyrights which is a shit law nobody should respect.
Cool, so you're fine stealing art from artists (or infringing the rights of artists, as you seem to prefer), and you're fine if billionaires steal art in support of capitalism. Got it. I agree the law is stupid, but stealing from artists isn't the correct way to fix it.
And again, because this is an Anarchy community: that's not anarchist thinking, that's capitalist thinking, and quite privileged at that.
It would be great if we could make a practical distinction between personal and private property, but until we deal with the powers at the top, the artists at the bottom with the rest of us still need to eat in the meantime in this abusive system.
I don't support corporations whatsoever but the kind of uses I promote for piracy and genai don't harm artists.
I also don't steal, nor violate their "rights" since they're coming from an unjust law. I am merely providing a space for like minded people to talk about genai and share their creations made for personal gratification.
I think there's something kinda poetic about this. Like if we adopt your banner, it shows that we're not repudiating the old banner or the people who made it, but that we are adapting to the needs of our time. And it's really pretty too
Gotcha. Image doesn't load on Boost so couldn't tell. I think there's no problem but we can't be too careful atm imo.
Yes, because unless the model was trained with properly licensed artwork (and virtually none of them are), it was built upon stolen art. Doesn't matter if it's somehow used ethically after that, the core algorithms were created unethically.
On top of that, GenAI use in its current form directly or indirectly supports billionaires and their goals, either by boosting their usage numbers for investors, boosting usage so that they decide to buy up production capacity for literal years, or just generally normalizing usage to regular people who are ignorant of the issues or (worse) supportive of the billionaire class.
You realize the copyright system you're defending was created for the purpose of benefiting those billionaires right? Do you think artists want copyright to last longer than they are alive and then some? Also do you think all the so-called "mom and pop artists" can afford to fight for their copyright in court if some chud decides to scoff at the law?
Stop parroting liberal garbage. We're not buying it. The only thing you've succeeded at here is making an idiot of yourself.
Yes. Amazing you think I'm defending copyright and not artists' livelihoods under a capitalist system. Copyright is certainly broken, but we do not have socialism or better. The artists do not benefit from people behaving as if capitalism isn't still the defacto machine abusing us all.
If what I've said can be construed as defense of copyright, it's only because artists do not have an alternative, and stealing from them keeps them poor (a distinctly capitalist endeavor, so hilarious coming from you all). What have you proposed except, "Hur dur, yew sownd like librul."
Lmao stop acting like you care about the big bad capitalists. You're just as bad as they are by doing the exact same things they do. Enjoy your privilege.
Apologizing for the status quo is the same as defending it. You are utterly pathetic. You can't claim to be against copyright then turn around and apologize for it because it's the status quo. That's called double-think.
Funny I'm not the one who expects people to bend and obey to liberal ideology because capitalism "exists".
Great, so under your plan, the artists starve while they wait for revolution. What a hero you are.
You can moan about "liberal ideology" all you want, but acting like people aren't trapped by capitalism isn't defeating it, and stealing from people in the cage isn't saving them.
You claim you don't believe in copyright and that you aren't in favor or it yet you keep calling copyright violations stealing. I find this really funny and hypocritical. Apologizing for the status quo certainly isn't saving anyone. It's called being a liberal. You aren't special in that regard. There's thousands of other liberals just like you apologizing for things as they are.
You miss the point. I would call it stealing if copyright didn't exist, because it is taking the livelihood from artists. If they had their livelihood taken care of, say under a communist system, I wouldn't care.
But you pretending capitalism doesn't exist for them isn't Leftist, it's just delusional.
Also, you calling me a liberal and a hypocrite while you shill for billionaire-controlled AI is rich. Your insults mean nothing, because I see what makes you cheer.
Copying data is not stealing period. Making a copy of 1s and 0s does not deprive people of the work. You cannot steal art online the way someone can steal a painting. This idea of ownership of ideas is insulting to the idea of art. It turns it into a commodity to be sold. Not something to be enjoyed. Real freedom loving anarchist aren't ya...
Explain to me how I "shill for billionare AI controlled by the rich"? The only thing you've shown me so far is that, you apologize for capitalism because of the way things are, which is liberal apologia by definition. And that you dislike AI so you claim that I'm supporting AI companies without actually describing how I'm doing that by use of local stable diffusion models with no subscriptions or ties back to big tech companies.
Would love to hear a real explanation but I doubt I'll get one, this reeks of the same anti-AI brain rot people from Fuck_AI vomit at me and db0 users constantly. AKA people saying I suck Sam Altman's dick. Which is funny because I can't stand Sam Altman or OpenAI.
Is fitting because that is 100% how you are acting. Anarchism isn't like Gender, you don't get to just identify as an anarchist and belay the meaning of what it stands for without people calling you out. Anarchists do not apologize for copyright and ownership of ideas. Ancaps do, but most of us don't consider them anarchists because they're just capitalist libertarians masquerading as anarchists.