@sofia
I mean to spell it out, if shelter, food and health were not intrinsically tied to financial stability than perhaps being copy left would be easier

To a certain extent I'm fully pro open source and copyleft, so much as that those contributing are well fed, have shelter and access to adequate healthcare. That is to say: Ethics are for the well fed.

We don't live in a vacuum, so posing the question as if we do is problematic because it's not including all the variables

@sofia
For instance in my life, I'm mostly vegan, however, as has happened in the past, if I end up at the hamper and soup kitchen, I'll eat what is served.

AI is building and taking from what we've created for thousands of years. Arguably so are artists and 'inventors'. The difference to me is that the AI doesn't need to capitalism to survive, but given our current political and economic environment, we do.

@karenm sorry if i'm missing something. i think what you are saying is that you are against copyright, but you don't mind people engaging with the copyright system if they are poor?

if that's the case i pretty much agree. i try to avoid paying money to copyright oligopolists (no buying books/games/etc at least not from major publishers) and publish all my work as public domain for ~15 years, but i can't judge people too hardly for not doing the same.

@sofia
Yeah, sorta, But instead of "poor", achieving the basic needs of food, shelter and health, described above

I've been recently getting my feet wet in IP realm as a means for survival, and it's becoming complicated to licence video footage. I want people like me to create, use and share it freely for sure. I sure as hell don't want my folks to be exploited for profit by corporate media/publishers, especially given the topic which may cost some of my peers our lives

@karenm yeah, having trouble getting your basic needs met is what i would call poverty 🤷.

good luck with your video project. it sounds important.

@sofia
So back to your AI poll though, it's not really a black and white discussion to me that is easily answered with your poll, because there's also the fact that the resources involved in creating AI off the backs of people, whom may only have copyright laws to claim against the mega-corps who have created AI really complicate that more.

But then we end up at did they create it, build on someone's work, or discover it problem...

@karenm i think you are referring to the AI training on copyrighted works. i don't think that is doing anything to artists, not more than people looking at their works, except on a larger scale.

i hope machine learning will be judged non-infringing, this would give copyright monopolists vastly more power and bring even more centralization of media.

then again, copyright is ultimately about owning thoughts, so it would "make sense".

@sofia
I think you should reconsider you position after checking in with a few artists that survive on their work.

Here's a suggested starting place: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSLd3Mb85BY

This person influenced my current views.

@sofia
Ps. Thanks for entertaining the discussion