"Inktober", "Little Free Library", and the "Progress Pride Flag" design with the triangle side shape are all trademarked and as such, I ultimately cannot trust them
I was going to post "if nanowrimo is so good why didn't they make a picowrimo". But then I looked it up and there is a picowrimo and has been for years mastodon.gamedev.place/@The4th…
It is a cliche that you cannot kill an idea. But this is exactly what intellectual property does. Copyrights, patents, trademarks are magic spells cast to make an idea unthinkable, unspeakable, unprintable.
Swamps form around the hole in the noosphere. People fear even to approach an idea cursed by "IP". It is unclear, always, how close you can safely get.
They do the opposite of kill the idea: they force it into the light so it can be known.
... but the consequence of how it is forced into the light is that it constrains how it may be legally used. And even those constraints hold almost nothing back, practically, from basement tinkering; they do, however, constrain building a living on that idea alone.
@mark It seems to me that lack of light is a problem which is easy to fix but ill intent from men with guns is a problem which is hard to fix. A basement will keep out men with guns, but only for a while
My understanding (but I haven't studied this directly; all secondary and tertiary sources) is that lack of light was a significant problem. The alternative to IP protections wasn't ideas in the daylight; it was guilds and trade secrets kept with death-pacts.
But it's probably fair to ask if the Information Age has changed the balance in such a way that society doesn't benefit from the incentives to publicize work in the way that it did when the Constitution was drafted.
(I know that I, for one, feel like AO3 and the Omegaverse really raise questions on whether copyright is important to make sure people keep writing novels. 😉 )
a take that I've heard from artists is that copyright and IP should just be given to people but instead it often goes to corporations. A common contract choice industry artists have to make is, do I sell the rights to my work for a living wage, or do I keep the rights but make an extremely low, unlivable amount? many famous creative shows, comics, etc end up not feeding the writers or artists who made them. but, getting rid of IP would make it impossible to live as an artist period.
They're prisons. Sometimes the prisoner dies before the prison falls (all copies of out of print work lost before it enters public domain) but many escape, a generation after they were sealed away. Like evil ghosts in a sacred tree, or perhaps sacred ghosts in an evil tree.
@rhosyn one of them. also someone tried to claim a trademark on the bi flag in the year 2020 but they weren't the creator and seem to have only been roundly laughed at
@GyrosGeier @Bigshellevent I agree, however, the Creative Commons people do *not* specifically agree Creative Commons protects you from AI-based infringement.
I think that "you can remove copyright through use of an LLM" would be the worst of all possible worlds, on copyright. LLMs inherently favor the large, powerful, rich. If LLMs are a copyright exception it is saying there is a class of people copyright binds but does not protect and a class of people it protects but does not bind.
@Bigshellevent the entire idea of copyleft is to be the Satanic Temple of rights on immaterial things, claiming any protection afforded to commercial enterprises also for themselves.
Without that context, we risk becoming the Church of Satan.
If art can be fed into a neural net for training despite the authors' wishes then so can everything else. Reverse engineering with an LLM that ingests the input and answers questions just became legal.
mcc
in reply to mcc • • •mcc
in reply to mcc • • •I was going to post "if nanowrimo is so good why didn't they make a picowrimo". But then I looked it up and there is a picowrimo and has been for years mastodon.gamedev.place/@The4th…
Developing Stacy
2024-10-03 17:37:34
mcc
in reply to mcc • • •reshared this
aeva, datenwolf and Cassandra Granade 🏳️⚧️ reshared this.
mcc
in reply to mcc • • •reshared this
aeva and datenwolf reshared this.
Mark T. Tomczak
in reply to mcc • • •They do the opposite of kill the idea: they force it into the light so it can be known.
... but the consequence of how it is forced into the light is that it constrains how it may be legally used. And even those constraints hold almost nothing back, practically, from basement tinkering; they do, however, constrain building a living on that idea alone.
mcc
in reply to Mark T. Tomczak • • •Mark T. Tomczak
in reply to mcc • • •My understanding (but I haven't studied this directly; all secondary and tertiary sources) is that lack of light was a significant problem. The alternative to IP protections wasn't ideas in the daylight; it was guilds and trade secrets kept with death-pacts.
But it's probably fair to ask if the Information Age has changed the balance in such a way that society doesn't benefit from the incentives to publicize work in the way that it did when the Constitution was drafted.
(I know that I, for one, feel like AO3 and the Omegaverse really raise questions on whether copyright is important to make sure people keep writing novels. 😉 )
Aaron Sawdey, Ph.D.
in reply to mcc • • •Alex
in reply to mcc • • •01d55
in reply to mcc • • •Russ Sharek
in reply to mcc • • •mcc reshared this.
Ursidinoj/The Bjornsdottirs
in reply to mcc • • •Developing Stacy
in reply to mcc • • •Tekgo
in reply to mcc • • •SpookJ 👻
in reply to mcc • • •rhosyn
in reply to mcc • • •mcc
in reply to rhosyn • • •meredith
in reply to mcc • • •mcc
Unknown parent • • •@GyrosGeier @Bigshellevent I agree, however, the Creative Commons people do *not* specifically agree Creative Commons protects you from AI-based infringement.
I think that "you can remove copyright through use of an LLM" would be the worst of all possible worlds, on copyright. LLMs inherently favor the large, powerful, rich. If LLMs are a copyright exception it is saying there is a class of people copyright binds but does not protect and a class of people it protects but does not bind.
Simon Richter
Unknown parent • • •@Bigshellevent the entire idea of copyleft is to be the Satanic Temple of rights on immaterial things, claiming any protection afforded to commercial enterprises also for themselves.
Without that context, we risk becoming the Church of Satan.
If art can be fed into a neural net for training despite the authors' wishes then so can everything else. Reverse engineering with an LLM that ingests the input and answers questions just became legal.
Heathen 🐈
in reply to mcc • • •