• 0 Posts
  • 127 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
Cake day: January 17th, 2024
  • Randomgal@lemmy.catoPiracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ@lemmy.dbzer0.com•Are there countries/territories where copyright law is *truly* unenforced?English
    9·
    20 days ago

    A lot of people in this thread are equating consuming pirates material with distribution. This is not the same.

    Sony has nothing to gain from going after you Joe Schmoe who plays illegal mp3s or cracked games. The reason they don’t have a lawsuit is not that Colombia doesn’t care, it’s that the company would have nothing to gain from enforcing the law and spending the resource required to bring charges against you, this is true in the US too. You might get a letter and your ISP might throw a fit if you torrent, by no rightsholder is going to spend money in court because you didn’t pay to play.

    The moment you start distributing pirated material, the interest of the company changes, now they care about you harming their IP, reducing their profits, etc. Now you are at risk of a lawsuit.

    Being in fucking Argentina on whatever won’t make a difference, if Sony wants to drag your ass to court, they will, in whatever country you are.

  • Randomgal@lemmy.catoAsklemmy@lemmy.ml•how to survive in an era where AI partially replaces even manual professions?
    24·
    2 months ago

    Don’t worry I had AI TL&DR it for you:

    Summary of “The Reverse-Centaur’s Guide to Criticizing AI”

    Cory Doctorow distinguishes between centaurs (humans assisted by machines) and reverse-centaurs (humans serving as appendages to machines). His core thesis: AI tools are marketed as centaur-making devices but deployed to create reverse-centaurs—workers subjected to algorithmic control and expected to catch machine errors while being blamed for failures.

    The AI bubble exists primarily to maintain growth stock valuations. Once tech monopolies dominate their sectors, they face market reclassification from “growth” to “mature” stocks, triggering massive valuation drops. AI hype keeps investors convinced of continued expansion potential.

    AI’s actual business model: Replace high-wage workers (coders, radiologists, illustrators) with AI systems that cannot actually perform those jobs, while retaining skeleton crews as “accountability sinks”—humans blamed when AI fails. This strategy reduces payroll while maintaining superficial human oversight.

    Why expanding copyright won’t help creators: Despite 50 years of copyright expansion, creative workers earn less both absolutely and proportionally while media conglomerates profit enormously. New training-related copyrights would simply become contractual obligations to employers, not worker protections.

    The effective counter-strategy: The U.S. Copyright Office’s position that AI-generated works cannot receive copyright protection undermines corporate incentives to replace human creators entirely. Combined with sectoral bargaining rights (allowing industry-wide worker negotiations), this creates material resistance to worker displacement.

    On AI art specifically: Generative systems produce “eerie” outputs—superficially competent but communicatively hollow. They cannot transfer the “numinous, irreducible feeling” that defines art because they possess no intentionality beyond statistical word/pixel prediction.

    The bubble will collapse, leaving behind useful commodity tools (transcription, image processing) while eliminating economically unsustainable foundation models. Effective criticism should target AI’s material drivers—the growth-stock imperative and labor displacement economics—not peripheral harms like deepfakes or “AI safety” concerns about sentience.