• Saledovil
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    9 hours ago

    First of all, copying or modifying somebody else’s work without their permission isn’t theft. Information cannot be owned in the way a physical object can be, as access to information is nonexclusive, meaning any number of people can use the same piece of information without impeding each other. Contrast that with physical objects, say a car. If I’m using your car, you can’t use it, because I’m doing so. If I copy your book, you still have the original. Hence its not theft.

    Copyright is a legal privilege governments grant to artists, so that the artists can be paid for their work. (In practice, it mostly protects big publishers and a few wealthy artists. Most artists can’t afford to the legal battle necessary to get the state to actually enforce the legal privilege they’ve been granted).

    This is a weird thread. Lots of people for artists losing control of their creations quickly while simultaneously against artist creations being used by others without consent.

    You are conflating copyright infringement and plagiarism. Plagiarism is claiming that you created the works of somebody else. This is morally wrong, regardless of whether you have the consent of the original author. By claiming that you created something you didn’t, you are lying to your audience. (In fact, even disguising your earlier work as new is considered plagiarism). The plagiarist is not a thief, they’re a liar. When you put somebody’s work into an LLM, and claim you created the output, you have committed plagiarism. Unless you credit every work used in the training of said LLM.

    when I publish a book, to steal it is consenting to be Luigi’d; no matter how long ago it came out.

    You do know that Luigi Mangione plead not guilty to the charges? And yet you use his name as a euphemism for murder. You can’t own information, copying it is not stealing.