VLC is just a media player. It isn't on them if anyone is using it to watch or listen pirated content just as much as it isn't on Adobe or Microsoft if people use them to read pirated books. They aren't the one hosting or distributing the pirated content
Really, I get an off feeling just by trying to parse out what is your reasoning here. Did we get to a point that technology is so corporately-controlled that the idea of a program can freely open files of a certain type is inherently subversive, as opposed to a service or storefront where everything is tied to some corporately-owned licenses?
But I shouldn't be alarmist and make too many assumptions. What is the "legal gray area risk" that you mean here?
Well, that is a sign of the medium maturing. We've figured out most basic technological limitations and many design conventions to make games that are as close to the vision of the creators as we want them to be. Until some new great discovery drastically changes how games are made, now it's just a matter of building up on existing ideas, with new twists.
That's the real problem. UBI is often brought up in these discussions as a "maybe someday hopefully" while AI is here, now.
The longer it's delayed for UBI to be established (if it's even going to be), the more people will suffer being driven into more precarious jobs or left to misery. It's already depressing to think of artists being automated out of art to go work on amazon warehouse or something, but it's not going to stop at that. A lot of service and intellectual work could be automated just as easily, maybe even more so.
If UBI isn't already here, then opposing AI is the only sane option labor movements have.
I got into technology because I loved it. Now, ever bit of news I get I hate it a little bit more. What happened with improving things, sharing information and making the world better?
Collective agreements like this shouldn't even be valid without representation of the other party. The customers get no say in it and it's treated as if it's law? Ridiculous.
Technically you don't get the copy rights to a book when you buy it either, but you do get that one copy of the book and publishers can't knock on your door demanding it back. You can even lend it or resell it.
However as far as respecting the customers rights, game and digital media companies want to set their own terms.
Is it Piracy to restore access to something you bought and got taken away from you? Well, if it is, I'm pro piracy.
I heard there was such a fantastic whimsical thing called "false advertising, punishable by law", but apparently as long as companies keep a bundle of inscrutable legalese shoved up their asses and fart it at you AFTER you press the button clearly labeled "BUY", it mysteriously ceases to exist.
Funny that customers can't spring documents at companies to demand stuff and treat continuation of the transaction as implicit agreement. Then, suddenly it's unfair and ridiculous.
The anti-modding attitude of japanese tech companies is utterly ridiculous. People were literally arrested in Japan for modifying Zelda saves and generating pokémon. People's lives ruined over some flipped bits of fictional stuff.
I can only imagine this law was created to protect microtransactions, which if anything would make it worse. All this to defend companies fleecing addicted gacha whales.
Copyright in the US started as 14-year duration with an optional extension of more 14 years. Considering how fleeting digital media is, this seems far more reasonable than 120 years as works for hire.
People may advocate for physical media however much they want, in 120 years most likely it will all have become trash. It's not a reasonable duration for cultural preservation.
They can't even admit this mindset is stupid because after they ruin every worthwhile company they just jump to the next thing while the industry they left sinks.
If AI companies lose, small artists may have the recourse of seeking compensation for the use and imitation of their art too. Just feeling for them is not enough if they are going to be left to the wolves.
There isn't a scenario here in which big media companies lose so talking of it like it's taking a stand against them doesn't make much sense. What are we fighting for here? That we get to generate pictures of Goofy? The small AI user's win here seems like such a silly novelty that I can't see how it justifies just taking for granted that artists will have it much rougher than they already have.
The reality here is that even if AI gets the free pass, large media and tech companies are still primed to profit from them far more than any small user. They will be the one making AI-assisted movies and integrating chat AI into their systems. They don't lose in either situation.
There are ways to train AI without relying on unauthorized copyrighted data. Even if OpenAI loses, it wouldn't be the death of the technology. It may be more efficient and effective to train them with that data, but why is "efficiency" enough to justify this overreach?
And is it even wise to be so callous about it? Because it's not going to stop with artists. This technology has the potential to replace large swaths of service industries. If we don't think of the human costs now, it will be even harder to make a case for everyone else.
Oh look at that, exactly the type of shallow pedant response I thought you would give, and even spiced up with completely unrelated guilt by association. You know, as if Rowling was the only writer ever and no poor trans artist existed.
🙄
As expected, you straight up pretended you didn't see the Duolingo thing. Truly words are wasted on you, you can't even be stubborn in a challenging way. I'm done with you.
You think you got a gotcha there, don't you? No need to discuss it in a measured way if you can take a single debatable point and cling to it like your life depend on it.
By definition I can't know if one artist truly quit or not or why if they aren't posting anymore. They might simply disappear. Also, commercial use of AI is just starting to ramp up so expecting the impacts to be immediately observable else it isn't happening, is just not a reasonable way to evaluate the situation.
The point of AI is to make creation of text, images and audio faster and easier without any human effort. It's only logical to expect it to substitute people's work.
I have heard people saying things about how AI is already being used for roles that would employ people. If you want names and proof of full bankruptcy you can go look into it yourself. But I'm not going to make a full investigative essay for someone who's making bad faith single sentence responses.
Though thinking of it, wasn't this news article posted in this very community? Duolingo lays off staff as language learning app shifts toward AI Well, the way you are acting you might just say "oh but that's not an artist", to try to 'win' the argument on a technicality, despite proof of AI usage leading to job losses.
For people who got phones with 5 cameras and decide "this doesn't trigger my trypophobia badly enough"