zlacker

> Far more importantly, though, artists haven't spent the last quarter century working to eliminate protections for IPR. Software developers have.

I think the case we are making is there is no such thing as intellectual property to begin with and the whole thing is a scam created by duck taping a bunch of different concepts together when they should not be grouped together at all.

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.en.html

>>thanks+(OP)
That's exactly the point, it's hard to see how someone could hold that view and pillory AI companies for slurping up proprietary code.

You probably don't have those views. But I think Thomas' point is that the profession as a whole has been crying "information wants to be free" for so many years, when what they meant was "information I don't want to pay for wants to be free" - and the hostile response to AI training on private data underlines that.

>>rfrey+ht
Because it's rules for us and not for them. If I take Microsoft's code and "transform" it I get sued. If Microsoft takes everyone else's code and "transforms" it (and sells it back to us) well, that's just business, pal. Thomas's argument is completely missing this point.

EDIT to add, I said this more completely a while ago: >>34381996