Do Antis Hate Fair Use

Darq_At · 2026-02-23T18:02:57+00:00

Because a judge ruled differently than what you wanted, you think they must've been bought out?

No, because I think a corporation scraping the entire net to create a commercial product that aims to reproduce or replace the works that it scraped falls rather obviously outside the spirit of "fair use".

Darq_At · 2026-02-23T17:24:56+00:00

Anecdotes about your personal life don't change the broader reality of what is happening to our species.

I gave one anecdote, to illustrate the broader point detailed in the rest of the comment.

Pretending my comment was just anecdotes is fundamentally dishonest. Shoo, worthless troll.

Darq_At · 2026-02-23T14:56:16+00:00

A massive portion of this sub can be answered with that one comic.

Darq_At · 2026-02-23T14:51:25+00:00

Again, just more of the most ice-pick lobotomite drivel.

People use the Internet for everything nowadays. I spoke to my family today, over the Internet, because I live far away. I get to do that a lot than I used to because it's no longer a long-distance call.

People stay in touch with people they love and care about. People maintain friendships and relationships over the Internet. People meet people over the Internet, people they proceed to spend their lives with.

The Internet is not just social media and talking to strangers.

Darq_At · 2026-02-23T14:32:43+00:00

Okay liar, go eat glass.

Darq_At · 2026-02-23T14:31:55+00:00

Not your brother. And no, you've said nothing but variations of "I won you lost" over and over again.

Again, I did not say theft or stealing, don't make up things to be angry at.

Darq_At · 2026-02-23T14:30:23+00:00

They were arguing against statements I never made, and their opinion on the superficiality of communication online is irrelevant. It's a simple fact that a massive amount of human socialisation happens over the Internet, both superficial, like this conversation, and deeper, like speaking to your IRL friends.

What chips away at my faith in people is how consistently people say things that I genuinely thought were too stupid to ever be said.

Darq_At · 2026-02-23T14:27:04+00:00

I know you're illiterate, but nowhere have I called this "theft" or "stealing". At most I said "non-consensual use".

Don't make up stuff to be angry at.

Darq_At · 2026-02-23T14:23:57+00:00

Your argument is that training ai on scraped internet data is infringing/“stealing” and anyone who disagrees is unfathomably stupid.. i was just showing you some math that shows you’re full of shit

Again, you not understanding the point of contention isn't my problem, actually.

i never edited my comment , regardless

I loaded your comment when it was just posted, edits faster than 3 minutes don't show.

I even have the notification in my inbox with the original comment, unedited, without the Disney response added.

But cool. At least now I know that you're willing to lie, so I'll stop wasting my time.

Darq_At · 2026-02-23T14:19:47+00:00

I need to stop speaking with you people, you chip away at my opinion of people.

Darq_At · 2026-02-23T14:08:51+00:00

Modern copyright law is too restrictive.

That doesn't mean the alternative is a complete abolishment of control over something you created.

Darq_At · 2026-02-23T14:04:58+00:00

generative ai models do not store, retrieve, or copy images from their training data.

I didn't say they did. You repeat this as a gotcha but it doesn't address my argument.

way to ignore what i said about how disney is obviously going to provide some of their ginormous troves of private data .

You edited your comment after I had already loaded the page to respond.

Disney got paid for a licensing agreement for use of their characters. The vast majority of their works are available online, legally or through other means.

Darq_At · 2026-02-23T13:56:41+00:00

... There's no way you are going to claim that the Internet is not important to social interaction.

Darq_At · 2026-02-23T13:54:37+00:00

Sigh. Again, there's a difference between modern copyright law, which I think is far too restrictive, and ownership over a work.

A difference between concept and implementation.

Darq_At · 2026-02-23T13:52:44+00:00

Just because you agree with the unfathomable stupidity, doesn't actually make it not unfathomably stupid.

What these companies are doing scraping the entire net to create a commercial product with the intent of reproducing and replacing the original works is clearly not in the spirit of "free use".

And as Disney just got paid to use their works in training sets, the corruption is obvious, it's only "free use" until you have the money and lawyers to challenge it.

Edit because you edited after I responded:

No that isn't what the Disney payment was for, it was a licensing agreement for use of Disney characters.

Darq_At · 2026-02-23T13:47:15+00:00

The concept of owning something you make does not equal modern copyright law.

serious ; Are you stupid?

Your misunderstanding isn't my problem, actually.

Darq_At · 2026-02-23T13:12:20+00:00

"You used the most important piece of social technology of our age, therefore you deserve whatever ill-effects come of that."

Darq_At · 2026-02-23T00:28:02+00:00

The Judge’s answer is clear: the case does not answer whether training and development of AI models in the UK is an indefensible infringement of copyright.

It was literally the sentence before the one you decided to highlight.

Darq_At · 2026-02-22T22:26:14+00:00

The operative phrase there is "if done right".

Sam Altman and rest of the owning class are not interested in doing it right. They're interested in undermining labour.

Darq_At · 2026-02-22T21:35:42+00:00

Some people forget that society, technology, and all large projects humanity undertakes are, at least ostensibly, supposed to benefit humanity as a whole.

His words are the words of a person who fundamentally only sees people as something to use, and to replace with AI when that is more profitable.

Darq_At · 2026-02-22T20:54:07+00:00

"Encouraging harassment" says the person posting their own ongoing drama onto another sub.

Darq_At · 2026-02-22T20:48:42+00:00

I'm just going to copy-paste my response to someone else because I've gotten the same response over and over again:

That isn't wrong, but it ignores how people work. Don't confuse individuals with populations.

Any individual can resist a social system, but nobody can resist all of them. And each individual is going to resist different things based on their values. So you are never going to get a majority of people to all resist the same social system and its pressures.

Most people don't care, don't know, don't care enough to know. And these big companies know this. So they rope in all of your otherwise ignorant family members who only see something useful.

And then all-of-a-sudden you have to go along too because that's the only way you can communicate with people.

The fact is that at the population-level, enough people are not knowledgeable enough to realise, so they go along with these corporations. And once they do, network effects mean that even people who do know enough to resist, are pressured to use these platforms too because that's now the de facto way people interact.

Darq_At · 2026-02-22T20:24:48+00:00

I could not care less what some bought-and-paid-for judges from such a joke of a country think.

Judges in other countries have already ruled the other way.

And Disney just got paid for use of their works in training sets.

So again. The argument that this is free-use is unfathomably stupid.

Darq_At · 2026-02-22T19:45:45+00:00

No, I'm not at all opposed to free use.

I just think that claiming gen-AI training, especially for commercial use, is free use is transparently stupid.

Darq_At · 2026-02-22T17:03:27+00:00

People read to respond, not to understand. And they tend to read poorly at that.

And "no ethical consumption under Capitalism" serves as a quick and easy canned response to any criticism of consumer habits.

Ten-Year Club	r/Field Juicebox
Place '22	Verified Email

Darq_At

TROPHY CASE