Wtf? Lemmy has absolutely lost the plot if you start calling the EFF "libertarian tech bros". Some of you tankies are so far removed from reality that it sometimes feels like I am in a psych ward when I read these comments. Shame on you, really. The people at EFF have done more for the betterment of humanity than all of you combined, and more than you ever will.
this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2026
14 points (55.3% liked)
Fuck AI
8457 readers
2122 users here now
"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"
A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.
AI, in this case, refers to LLMs, GPT technology, and anything listed as "AI" meant to increase market valuations.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Not tankies, this comm is its own separate echo chamber
That's why the mod team keeps up posts that target communities and harasses users.
Can I ask to what you're referring?
This community has explicitly been allowing harassment of communities and members because they use AI in another instance. Your mod team either ignores it, supports it, or does it.
So, this is not me arguing, just trying to understand, and so far I have more questions than answers:
- Can you give me specific instances of this?
- Did you report it?
- If you did report it, what did you give as your "reason" in the report? (I ask just because mostly the reports we get aren't very specific with their reason and sometimes it's hard to discern even what specifically they mean. I don't personally review every thread that comes through !fuck_ai@lemmy.world, so it's not like I go into these reports with context to go off of.)
- You say "explicitly". As in, mods have made statements in reference to what you're talking about?
- How frequent are these instances? A running pattern, or a once-off?
Honestly just any more context you can give me will be helpful.
If you'd like to move this conversation to DM, I'm good with that. Or if you're wanting more transparency in this discussion, I'm good with keeping it here.
After listening to Cory Doctorow's latest book, I did see a different perspective on this. His argument is that the technical analysis of a copyrighted work has been fair use - it's how we have search engines, for instance. The key is that you can't copyright that generated analysis.
He also argues that copyright right now is so ridiculously tilted towards the major media/tech companies that any perceived benefit to the artist from it gets absorbed by the companies because the marketplace has become so consolidated.
If your expectation is that the EFF will denounce anything AI-related you should certainly cancel your donations. I've found them to be great champions of the lost cause of trying to preserve our digital rights. That they haven't given up despite the insurmountable odds is inspiring to me.
If you think that copyright is there for the benefit of ordinary people, then I've got news for you.
I dislike the AI oligarchy as much as the next person. But copyright is never the tool to protect artistic integrity. Relying on it always fires back in favour of big corpos.
As you say. Laws don't exist to shackle the ruling class.
At the same time, though, as long as the economic system remains what it is, copyright is often the only thing that allows artists to make a living off their work, even when its implementation has many problems.
You can say that we should focus on changing the economic system then, and sure, but that's not going to happen tomorrow and in the meantime I'd rather not live in a world where art is economically unviable.
That's hardly universal. Most working artists don't get a lot of income from a back library of material, unless you're one of the last few independent stock photographers. They make income by working.
Artists who are employed or do contract work are often hired because someone is trying to make money off something that makes use of their work, and their ability to make money off that often depends on copyright. So it's still ultimately a dependency on copyright, just with one layer of separation in between.
That leaves artists who make an income from doing some kind of performance, like concerts or plays. I guess that doesn't really require copyright, but it's a pretty limited subset of artists for whom this is possible.
Software developers, graphics artists, window painters, live musicians, session musicians, photographers and cinematographers, copy writers, florists, chocolatiers, dancers, interior decorators, animators, chefs, composers, and virtually every other kind of artist would still have a job in a world without copyright protection. If your art isn't being mass produced, it's not really relevant.
Sure, someone is going to need to write the firmware for the machinery in factories regardless of copyright protections, but who's going hire animators if they can't sell the final product or monetise it in any way without immediately competing against their own work? People who make commercials? Real bright future you're depicting there.
But more importantly, aren't you forgetting something fundamental here?
I’d rather not live in a world where art is economically unviable.
This is not just about the artists, it's also about me. And by me, I mean everyone, including artists, because they don't just create art. Most of the art I enjoy is mass-produced: books are, films are, video games are. If those become economically unviable in the current economic system, then my art appreciation would basically become occasionally going to a concert or museum, and going through humanity's backlog of works. Certainly, that backlog is large enough for many lifetimes, but while Cold War analogies are still relevant to some extent, it sure would be nice to enjoy something that speaks of today every now and then.
That's a ridiculous statement. I make royalties from sales of an audio sample library I once worked on. If people just pirated that sample library and got it for free and didn't buy it, I wouldn't receive any royalties.
That's called theft.
No, it's not called theft. It's called infringement. You don't own the song, the poem, the story, the character, the image in the photo or the audio in the sample. One cannot own a song. What one has is an exclusive right to exploit a song.
I feel like your, "That's called theft," is an attempt to moralize and shame. But that's only called infringement among those who agree it is, because they agree it is. There is no cosmic law that makes it so and there is really no financial reality that requires it to be so.
It's not infringement if you use an algorithm that someone else figured out, and somehow software developers all manage. It's not infringement if I build my house exactly the same as the one you have an architect design, but architects do okay. It's not infringement when I perform a Jonathan Coulton song for money, and despite putting all his creative output in the Creative Commons, he still has a successful career.
The way things are are ARBITRARY and don't reflect morality or need. Over time copyright law has become entirely detached from the needs of artists and instead reflects the needs of the capitalists who seek to exploit artists' output.
That's a very long-winded of saying you support the right for me to lose the money I deserve as the creator of a product. We have nothing left to talk about. Bye.
What? No it isn't. Where did I say anything remotely like that?
Your anecdote doesn't trump my anecdote; now we have two anecdotes.
Funny, I know plenty of artists who care very much about copyright. I am one of them.
None of these anti-copyright arguments hold any water for me. Copyright protects everyone, regardless of if they're tiny or huge. If you believe that isn't true because of the legal system favoring those with big pockets, that's the problem, not the concept of copyright per se.
If you believe that isn't true because of the legal system favoring those with big pockets, that's the problem, not the concept of copyright per se.
An economics system in need of copyright will always implement it in favour of the powerful. You're currently dependent on copyright. But that doesn't mean that it is set up in your favour.
Copyright lead to the fact that you can't use certain samples in your remix on youtube if you don't want to get copyright striked to infinity by sony.
Wait.... An attorney commenting on how an existing legal definition is likely to be interpreted....
This isn't the EFF saying "AI is great" from the linked article. This is the attorney saying that the DOJ comment unfortunately is accurate in line of the existing definition if the exception.
The only defense they use is from the take of individuals or smaller groups training.
I get the knee jerk reaction wanting the EFF to come out against all AI, but that isn't going to change the written laws. They've been fighting abuse via these laws for decades.
I hate Gemini etc as much as the next, but attacking the underlying capitalist and fascist push the big tech are doing via panic changes to what is supposed to be civil definitions instead of toward the criminal intent underlying is short sighted and will absolutely be leverage by those tech bros for even further destruction of what might be left of laws.
Anyone who thinks copyright law will stop bezos etc from harming the world is still thinking they can somehow get their government to tax them back to "normal wealth".
Wow, what a letdown...
How could experts in the field know better than random people online?!
and I thought eff was one of the good ones
They still are, even if you disagree with them on one point. It might be worth noting that the EFF isn't a copyright defence house. Their mission is different. They support the open Internet.
I'm on dbzer0 and they're pro-AI. I'm not, but I don't disrespect their POV in their house. I feel like I'm skating a fine line being subbed here. They're also one of the only instances that supports freedom of speech. I just understand that some of that speech I don't agree with.
These people evaluate things through dogma above all else.
Damn, what the fuck?
This isn't the first time. They already have supported the AI industry's mass copytheft.
Technically the truth. AI is trained on copyrighted works, but so is every artist alive today. There's just a really important difference in human inspiration and creativity and a computer program piecing together what it's already seen. One creates something new while standing on the shoulders of what came before, while the other just remixes what's already there and tramples upon the backs of what came before. I think it's important to know the difference.
The scale is also massively different. Some artist or intellectual reused the work of a few preceding people people and became famous (and sometimes rich) instead of them. But in the case of AI it's a couple of already ultra rich owners vs millions of likely mostly struggling creators.
The law has suspiciously little to say about wealth concentration. Hm.
The main problem is that AI just creates what I call "Collage Slop".