• Commiejones [comrade/them, he/him]
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    So piracy is stealing? Sneaking into a movie theater without a ticket is stealing? Using a reference photo you didn't take for a painting is stealing?

    Your position is without merit and having been exposed to the truth you lash out in anger like a petulant child. With comrades like these who needs reactionaries.

      • Commiejones [comrade/them, he/him]
        ·
        2 months ago

        The reason piracy is not stealing is because information can be cloned freely. It has nothing to do with who you are pirating from. Stealing is stealing. Copying is not stealing. AI doesn't even copy. It mimics other works. Is putting on an unlicensed stage production of a fan written sequel to an Indy film stealing?

        Independent Artists are not working class. They do not get paid in wages and they control the means of production. They are petit-bourgeoise.

        Is stealing from a small privately owned corner store less ethical than stealing from a big chain store? no. The fact is neither of them are allies of the working class because they have a leg up on the non-ownership class and survive off exploitation. (some petit-bourgeoise are allies of the working class but they are statistically insignificant)

        Stop it with the name calling. It makes your arguments look even weaker than they already are. Stop telling me I'm not worth your time and then responding to me as it proves you have little self control. And don't call me a Lib when you are the one arguing in favor of intellectual private property rights.

        Engage with my arguments or disengage.

        • autismdragon [he/him, they/them]
          ·
          2 months ago

          Independent Artists are not working class. They do not get paid in wages and they control the means of production. They are petit-bourgeoise.

          This might be technically true but saying this as an excuse to why its ok for corporations to plagiarize from independent artists is like actually horrific. (And its vaguely shitty though not as bad to use it as an excuse for why its ok for individuals to plagiarize from independent artists).

          Like I'm sorry I know that technically under the terms definition an independent artist barely scrapping by on a handful of commissions or patreons who struggles as much as any minimum wage worker to make ends meet is as "petite-bourgiouse" as a jetski dealer who lives comfortably. But there are two things I gather from that

          1. Them technically falling under the same umbrella doesn't excuse treating them the same because the material conditions they are facing are different. One is clearly vulnerable to exploitation, the other simply isnt in the same way.
          2. Honestly? We probably need new terms if these two things fit the same definition as the definition currently stands, because they are materially different in so many ways. I refuse to be a slave to Marxist definitions as they currently stand if they cease to be useful to describe our material reality, and I'd say this is a pretty clear case of them not productively describing our material reality.

          Intellectual property is bullshit as a concept but under capitalism independent artists are vulnerable and exploited and should be protected from plagiarism. Particularly in the case of a bigger fish being the plagiarizer, whether that bigger fish be AI companies or situations like James Sommerton plagiarizing smaller creators.

          • Commiejones [comrade/them, he/him]
            ·
            2 months ago

            This might be technically true but saying this as an excuse to why its ok for corporations to plagiarize from independent artists is like actually horrific.

            Being happy that your enemy (capitalists) are hurting a fence sitter (artists) is not horrific. Call me an accelerationist if you like but I don't think having a bunch of artists that are pissed off at the capitalist world order is a bad thing. On the contrary if the people who make entertainment and art are comfortable and content with secure jobs they will actively work to maintain the status quo.

            Intellectual property is bullshit as a concept but under capitalism independent artists are vulnerable and exploited and should be protected from plagiarism.

            Why? All professions are equal from janitors to doctors to teachers to miners to ditch diggers. Saying that artists are special and deserve protection from automation, which no other profession has, is silly. Nearly every other profession has been through the same struggles that artists are going through. Artists are lucky it took this long for their job to be automated. Why should anyone be protected from the ravages of capitalism if we are not all protected? Demanding that a single niche profession should be spared from being subjected to the suffering caused by class war is a weird ideological brain worm with no materialist basis. That is not working class solidarity that is Arts worker supremacy.

            • autismdragon [he/him, they/them]
              ·
              2 months ago

              I'm not going to respond to most of this because its just completly misguided but I did want to zero in on probably the worst part.

              if the people who make entertainment and art are comfortable and content with secure jobs

              Are you under the impression that the majority of artists are currently in this position lol? Like is that where your brain is broken on this issue you think most people who draw or write for a living are comfortable?

              • Commiejones [comrade/them, he/him]
                ·
                2 months ago

                "misguided" You just refuse to face the fact that you are putting arts workers on a pedestal separate from the rest of the working class. They don't deserve job security more than anyone else and they aren't being threatened more than any other workers.

                if the people who make entertainment and art are comfortable and content with secure jobs

                This was said as an extreme end on a sliding scale. It is not my view of how things currently are. Its true of all people the more comfortable they are the less revolutionary potential they have.

                Its pretty telling that the only argument you choose to discuss is an argument I wasn't making.

        • NuraShiny [any]
          ·
          2 months ago

          It's probably best for you to stop talking, because you keep revealing yourself as an idiot.

          The enemy isn't anyone with two real in their pocket, the enemy is the people who actually have the money.

          Absolutely reprehensible. Just leave and go back to hang out with the Borger King. He shares your views.

          • Commiejones [comrade/them, he/him]
            ·
            2 months ago

            Maybe you are right. Maybe I am an idiot to think I could have a rational discussion with a treat spoiled labor aristocrat. You just keep name calling and saying "nuh uh." so if you don't have anything useful to say just go back to your bespoke hand crafted furry porn.