• Randomgal@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    For artists able to afford a lawsuit against a multimillion company.

    No. It doesn’t benefit artists.

    • BadlyDrawnRhino @aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 days ago

      But the large corporations are handling that side of things already. If the lawsuit goes in the favour of copyright holders, AI companies would in theory have to do something to avoid using copyrighted material, or pay for the usage. Of course, there’s every chance that they may end up avoiding using copyrighted material from anyone big enough to fight back, and just profit off of the works of artists without the resources to stop them doing so.

          • Randomgal@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            No thanks. I care about real benefits and systemic changes. Not fucking petty vengeance.

            It’s literally worse than nothing because now all the time and effort used fighting for this was wasted.

            • LukeZaz@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              23 hours ago

              If it ends the stupid AI bubble then I don’t think it qualifies as petty vengeance; that is some real change. There won’t be meaningful legislation to aid the day-to-day person against this garbage, no, but it’d still seriously reduce the degree to which this shit has invaded our lives.

            • floofloof@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              23 hours ago

              If artists get a break from competing against plagiarized AI slop, that’s not petty vengeance.