Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

It's not like there has been some change in principle and some sort of knife to sharpen. "2005 personal pirate" was about making art accessible. "2025 corpo pirate" is about killing art.
 help



LLMs make pirated art more accessible, and 2005 pirates allegedly harmed artists by decreasing their sales.

The significant change is that 2025 corpo pirates are big corporations, and 2005 personal pirates are individuals. And I think the larger issue is that the big corpo pirates get away with what 2025 personal pirates wouldn’t.

Anyways, my opinion is that we should get rid of IP, but only with a replacement that ensures creators still get paid. I lean towards piracy being a small sin: immoral, but you can easily be a pirate and still overall moral person.


Reselling stolen relabeled art makes it more accessible? I don't buy it.

> LLMs make pirated art more accessible

lol. The current "AI" industry is in the development phase where the surveillance industry was from 2000-2010 or so. After they're done getting everyone reliant on their products (including giving away many for free), and having installed their regulatory mote, they'll really start tightening the enshittification noose.

The original argument is fallacious because it ignores this obvious dynamic. "AI" companies aren't pirating works so they can then give them away for free indefinitely. Rather they are pirating works to create their own proprietary systems which will most certainly not be given away for free.

Eventually the activists pushing for copyright enforcement on "AI" training are going to start to "win" - after the big centralized "AI" players will have brokered deals with the relevant content cartels (this lawsuit is merely "haggling over the price"). So the dynamic will be to stomp out the training of new competing models, both grassroots libre and new proprietary startup competitors.


> LLMs make pirated art more accessible,

[citation needed]

> 2005 pirates allegedly harmed artists by decreasing their sales.

provably false


2005 piracy had little to do to with making art accessible. For the most part it seemed more like getting for free the digital things we couldn't pay or and/or felt entitled to, with many justifications layered on top.

It wedged distribution away from record companies. IMHO, that was a pretty big concern for them.

that's the same thing?

And in 2004 you had a tape deck with two bays meant for copying and none of your tapes or cds were real. You’d make copies from other people or even the radio or TV. People forget how piracy was actually the norm before the digital age attempted to crack down on it. Even just passing a book you enjoyed to a friend to read, can you even do that with ebook DRM?



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: