I know it’s a popular meme to say, “if buying isn’t owning, then piracy isn’t stealing”, but that is brainrot. It’s not even consistent with fair labor practices. It would be like a company saying “if your work doesn’t produce value for me, then the time and effort you put in should not be compensated”. That’s not the deal.
Artists should be paid, and pirating art is stealing. It’s just that, in the name of equity and the love of art, they might be OK with it if someone who can’t afford it doesn’t pay. But speaking on behalf of every artist ever: when a corporation who absolutely can afford it doesn’t pay, it’s stealing, and the artists want their damn compensation.
I agree with you that it’s not theft. Theft legally well defined and distinct from copyright infringement. I’m saying copyright infringement is stealing. You are taking from an artist their living. It’s honestly baffling to me that one could mental gymnastics themselves into believing otherwise.
An artist produces content. They offer the ability to view the content in exchange for money. They rely on this income to make a living. Instead, you find a way to view the content without giving them money. A portion of their income that they would have otherwise received exists in your pocket instead of theirs.
Maybe it will help to think of it as a service: if you get a haircut, and then leave without paying, have you stolen anything?
Look, I’m not saying that stealing is always unethical. Robinhood is a story of someone who steals from the rich to give to the poor, and only temporarily embarrassed Prince Johns would say he’s not the good guy in that story. I’m just saying let’s be honest about it. Call a spade a spade.
If you deliberately execute only the half of a transaction that is favorable to you, that’s stealing. If you sneak into a movie theater without paying, you’re stealing. If you download music without paying for it, you’re stealing. If a corporation takes art without paying to train a machine to produce facsimiles of that art to make money, they are stealing.
Honestly, if we still disagree, fine. This discussion feels like one of semantics, completely tangential to the point I was making. Cheers.
I’m saying the corporations developing the AIs did that. They took the content without licensing it, and used it to build something else that they are now profiting from.
I know it’s a popular meme to say, “if buying isn’t owning, then piracy isn’t stealing”, but that is brainrot. It’s not even consistent with fair labor practices. It would be like a company saying “if your work doesn’t produce value for me, then the time and effort you put in should not be compensated”. That’s not the deal.
Artists should be paid, and pirating art is stealing. It’s just that, in the name of equity and the love of art, they might be OK with it if someone who can’t afford it doesn’t pay. But speaking on behalf of every artist ever: when a corporation who absolutely can afford it doesn’t pay, it’s stealing, and the artists want their damn compensation.
Piracy is copyright infringement, not theft.
I agree with you that it’s not theft. Theft legally well defined and distinct from copyright infringement. I’m saying copyright infringement is stealing. You are taking from an artist their living. It’s honestly baffling to me that one could mental gymnastics themselves into believing otherwise.
The images still exist in their original locations, they have not been stolen.
An artist produces content. They offer the ability to view the content in exchange for money. They rely on this income to make a living. Instead, you find a way to view the content without giving them money. A portion of their income that they would have otherwise received exists in your pocket instead of theirs.
Maybe it will help to think of it as a service: if you get a haircut, and then leave without paying, have you stolen anything?
Look, I’m not saying that stealing is always unethical. Robinhood is a story of someone who steals from the rich to give to the poor, and only temporarily embarrassed Prince Johns would say he’s not the good guy in that story. I’m just saying let’s be honest about it. Call a spade a spade.
If you deliberately execute only the half of a transaction that is favorable to you, that’s stealing. If you sneak into a movie theater without paying, you’re stealing. If you download music without paying for it, you’re stealing. If a corporation takes art without paying to train a machine to produce facsimiles of that art to make money, they are stealing.
Honestly, if we still disagree, fine. This discussion feels like one of semantics, completely tangential to the point I was making. Cheers.
Right here is where you lost me. How does AI offer you that ability?
I’m saying the corporations developing the AIs did that. They took the content without licensing it, and used it to build something else that they are now profiting from.
But I can also view that content without licensing it…
If I pay someone to create an image in a style of another artist, and they look at that artists work, have I stolen that artwork?
deleted by creator