beehaw account for https://lemmy.ca/u/rentlar

  • 1 Post
  • 140 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 3rd, 2023

help-circle

  • You make a decent point, but the disconnect between people paying for content and the money going to the people who contributed effort to it is getting wider and wider.

    Popular shows that people subscribed for get axed after 1 season or moved to another service. All the work people did for Warner Brothers’ Batgirl gets thrown in the trash so that WB can get a tax write-off, before any movie watcher can even give a cent to them in support.

    The point is big studios make so much year after year that pirating their stuff doesn’t make a dent in whether the people they hire get paid accordingly.


  • Many scene groups actually purchased the games and cracked them, I’ve read NFOs that say “buy the game, we did too”.

    People recording in movie theatres have to either sneak into the theatre or buy a ticket themselves.

    Someone scanning a book to post online had to have bought it or borrowed it.

    Yes some games are cracks of illegitimate obtained leaked copies or other unscrupulous methods.

    I have played pirated games in the past but my Steam library has thousands of dollars worth of games I bought, many of which I wouldn’t have if I weren’t interested in these type of games to begin had pirating games not been possible.

    Sure, the opportunity cost from piracy’s “lost sales” to the publisher/licensor is non-zero. But how many sales that would have happened varies greatly on the perceived value vs. price of the product, and how available it is. If it’s not in stores anymore and can only be bought from scalpers on eBay, the publisher cough Nintendo cough doesn’t see that money anyway vs. pirating it.















  • I agree with your point overall in terms of AI not actually learning (I’d describe it as optimizing).

    However, I will say that inferring from what is not said is a tricky one to apply generally, which you do in your reply by jumping to conclusions as follows:

    The fact that they refused to reply hints that the reply would be against their best interests, either lying in a liable way or saying the truth and potentially ruining their investment.

    This is dangerous, can be used disingenuously and I discourage using it in our discourse.



  • The author of this opinion has a point, and that artist not getting ownership of works involving AI image generation is a consequence, but I like that it also discourages big studios from taking AI generated mishmash as a drop-in replacement for human produced artwork. If they used it some video generation program at this moment to replace strikers, there are grounds that the studios have no ownership of it.

    Anyways, I think copyright law should be fully torn down and rebuilt to reasonable levels, so AI may be a good catalyst to achieve this vision of mine.