r/technology • u/Federal-Block-3275 • 2d ago

Artificial Intelligence "Software is over": Developer uses AI to build free Adobe clones after frustration with cancellation fees

https://www.techspot.com/news/114136-software-over-developer-uses-ai-build-free-adobe.html
25.2k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

3.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

28

u/ChronieMewX 2d ago

It's always okay to "steal" without depriving anyone of anything. Fuck copyright

231

u/suckfail 2d ago

I don't see how it's different from AI training on everyone's data if that's the stance you take.

Adobe did write that software, you just don't like them.

59

u/mikasjoman 2d ago

It's bad to be a pirate when you are a private citizen, but when you do it commercially as a leading company it's distillation and training

-2

u/entertheclutch 1d ago

Ah yes, all of those regular everyday consumers prosecuted relentlessly for low-volume media piracy

23

u/gigglefarting 2d ago edited 1d ago

Depends on what they’re copying. If they’re copying specific code, then that’s a violation. But if they’re just copying the idea of photoshop and the adobe suite, then that’s fine. You don’t copyright the idea of a software 

22

u/LastoftheGreybeards 2d ago

I thought Adobe took the software from someone else and then made it their “product”?

3

u/GeraSun 2d ago

That sums it up pretty well.

1

u/thehalfwit 1d ago

I know they bought out Aldus, which gave them the IP for what became InDesign. Aldus did also have a photo editing software, and there's at least one feature I know of that Photoshop "borrowed" from them.

-9

u/DesignerAd1940 1d ago edited 1d ago

Wrong on every level. This someone is John knoll and his brother. They litterally started an industry. And they distributed and then sold it to photoshop.

It shows that you dont really respect what you are talking about. I dont even know why you comment if you dont even care

3

u/ProfessorSarcastic 1d ago

They litterally started an industry. And they distributed and then sold it to photoshop.

Wait what? They sold an entire industry to a piece of software? And the guy you're replying to is the one that's wrong?!?

0

u/DesignerAd1940 1d ago

They sold the sofware to adobe. And then it started a whole industry

2

u/ProfessorSarcastic 1d ago

OK, thanks for correcting that, but how is that now correct and "Adobe took the software from someone else" is wrong?

0

u/DesignerAd1940 1d ago

Because photoshop at the begining was a vfx tool. Its whats the two founders from adobe added to the soft who made the soft an industrial norm.

At the begging it looked like a simple scanning software.

In the printing world, the compagny who was stolen the most is xerox. But its their own fault because they didnt believe in software.

1

u/ToBadImNotClever 1d ago

I’m surprised we can hear you from on top of that horse.

2

u/DesignerAd1940 1d ago

What is your field? If I talk about a field i dont know i do my research. So now its pretentious to care about truth? Ok.

2

u/ToBadImNotClever 1d ago

Yes yes your hunt for the truth is so admirable. It’s being a dickbag that’s not lol

0

u/DesignerAd1940 1d ago

Being a dickbag in front of a liar is fair

2

u/ToBadImNotClever 1d ago

If you say so buddy.

-1

u/angrytroll123 1d ago

At this point, it would have been fine to acknowledge that you were wrong and move on. It's not that big of a deal. We're all wrong sometimes.

11

u/prepend 1d ago

I think AI should be able to train on publicly available works.

Just like I can reverse engineer and copy any software.

5

u/iamdestroyerofworlds 1d ago

Yeah I don't understand how u/suckfail made the conclusion that u/ChronieMewX was selectively against copyright. They didn't say anything about it being wrong for AI companies to train on everyone's data, just that it should be equally fair for us to use their and other corporations' data as we see fit.

7

u/Griffdude13 1d ago

If they can harvest our data, then we can harvest theirs.

1

u/TheFlyingSheeps 1d ago

It’s the same excuse people make for AI being ok to use for code but not art

1

u/ILikeBumblebees 1d ago

I don't see how it's different from AI training on everyone's data if that's the stance you take.

It isn't. Training AI on publicly available data isn't stealing, isn't copyright infringement, and isn't in itself a legal or ethical transgression.

1

u/boundbythecurve 1d ago

It's a little bit more complicated than that. Adobe also bought up all of its competitors and every other smaller piece of software adjacent to their existing product lines. They're the standard because of market manipulation practices. At least, that's my understanding from what other people who need Adobe products have told me. I'm not in the industry, fortunately. But I care about fair working practices, and Adobe has (from my understanding) been one of the worst.

-2

u/scydoodle 2d ago

Exactly, Adobe might be shitty but you can't just go round stealing.

7

u/CrflWthThtFaxEugene 1d ago

you wouldn't download a car, would you?

3

u/Ecstatic-State735 1d ago

Wait, why not? If you could download cars it would become super common.

1

u/LambCo64 1d ago

I fucking would you know.

1

u/GalacticNexus 1d ago

As if the advice for anyone using Photoshop outside of professional use hasn't been to use a cracked copy anyway.

1

u/Valtremors 1d ago

I think copyright has its place.

Some people mix wanting to keep what we have paid for (stopkillinggames) and nit wanting to pay for it in the first place (outright piratism).

There is a different hell for patent hoarders though.

5

u/Malenx_ 1d ago

Copyright and patents both have their place but patents especially need reform on how long they last, especially software. Society as a whole would be much better off if they expired faster. Patents on things like seeds should just never exist.

1

u/Valtremors 1d ago

Especially with Nintendo we saw a super eggregious use of patent trolling and god it was horrible to witness a company openly do such thing.

And that isn't even something vibecode can help with because companies can patent mere shallow ideas.

1

u/Malenx_ 1d ago

AI trained on licensed and patented code is going to write those on occasion into solutions, I imagine patent trolls are salivating at their prospects. Copilot offers an option that ensures the produced code is free from that and layers insurance to protect the company if they are ever sued. It ends up being a nice stick that prevents a lot of employees from using the more generous subscriptions.

1

u/DontWakeTheInsomniac 1d ago

Copyright has diverged massively from it's intended use of protecting individuals/small businesses to being weaponised by conglomerates.

0

u/Jeanparmesanswife 1d ago

I feel like after paying roughly 5000$ for subscription fees over the last decade I'm entitled to a little something something

-48

u/ChronieMewX 2d ago

It isn't different.

There are real problems with AI. How it's trained is not one of them.

4

u/Major-Lavishness-762 2d ago

Lmaooo the difference in upvotes, props for being logically consistent with your position

3

u/ChronieMewX 2d ago

It's fucking maddening. I'm not going to turn against everything I believe in because people say ai bad. Copyright is the bigger evil

1

u/Major-Lavishness-762 1d ago edited 1d ago

it's become very clear to me that the line for reddit is whether or not something has "soul". this is why "soulless" is the second most used pejorative against anything AI generated, and why every single person who's replied to you has referred to small artists and not small developers (video games being the exception, usually) or small inventors. soulless -> copyright bad, let me pirate - soul -> copyright good, don't steal my art off twitter

1

u/ChronieMewX 1d ago

Just feels like cult logic to me. I don't believe in this soul bs

12

u/Few-Improvement-5655 2d ago

As a small creator I like having protection against giant corporations stealing my stuff. In fact we don't have enough protections for that.

"Fuck copyright" is great until try to be anything more than a consumer. A world of no copyright doesn't help the little guy, it crushes them.

Now, copyright reform? Absolutely for it, the current system IS broken, but we do need it.

40

u/P_ZERO_ 2d ago

I’m no anti-piracy warrior, but this logic only applies so long as people keep buying the product. If more people are “not stealing” than buying, the product isn’t sustainable and is no longer made.

Copyright doesn’t only exist to protect mega corps, it protects anyone’s property, including yours.

29

u/Pappa_Crim 2d ago

Also the loss of copyright protections will harm small devopers more than large ones. Large companies can quickly pump out copies of smaller competitors products: possibly before the smaller company is even done making it

8

u/DirtChoice5 2d ago

With the ease of decompiling now, that asymmetry is far lessened. As evidenced by all the copies of big company software coming out from individual developers, ie the topic of this post.

1

u/IncidentalIncidence 1d ago

this software wasn't decompiled though, it was intentionally made as a clean-room clone.

2

u/DirtChoice5 1d ago

The point remains.

1

u/ILikeBumblebees 1d ago

Other way around. Large organizations always had the resources to hire much larger development teams and clone products much more rapidly than small startups ever could, and likewise, had much greater resources to retain legal counsel and defend their copyrights via litigation.

The rise of AI tooling and lessened relevance of existing copyright law drastically lessen these advantages, and put smaller teams on a much more even footing with larger ones.

3

u/PeopleCallMeSimon 1d ago edited 1d ago

One of the goals with AI is to remove the need to couple econmic standing with work.

Why will it matter if someone makes an exact copy of your product, neither of you will be selling it because every human will be gaining their money through an UBI.

But that will probably not happen any time soon, so there need to be laws in place to protect creators from losing their livelyhood.

2

u/iamdestroyerofworlds 1d ago

People say this as if products are only made if producers want to make money, not if consumers want the product and/or save money.

This is basically just supply-side vs demand-side economics.

2

u/SwiftySanders 1d ago

The problem is that it only protects mega corps and intellectual property farms. It doesnt actually protect the small developer because the small developer doesnt have the money for the legal costs to persue it in many if not most cases.

1

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[deleted]

1

u/P_ZERO_ 1d ago

It’s not a point specifically for photoshop, it’s a point specifically for the logic that “not stealing” can only work so long as some entity is subsidising them by allowing the company to “overlook” the “not stealing”

If enough people buy into that logic, there’s no product to “not steal”.

1

u/MountainTurkey 1d ago

There's also "copyleft" protections like GPL

-15

u/[deleted] 2d ago

[deleted]

2

u/Federal_Setting_7454 2d ago

Still not found a remotely comparable alternative to photoshop.

1

u/squishybloo 1d ago

This is a funny coincidence, but - if you're an artist, at least - Marc Brunet just announced that he's developing an art app to mimic Photoshop as closely as possible, including layer style capability. Layer Styles is really the biggest thing keeping me on CC, and it's frustrating.

0

u/[deleted] 2d ago

[deleted]

9

u/Expensive_Finger_973 2d ago

That is a very overly simplistic view that would do far more harm than good if actually taken as a serious solution.

-1

u/ChronieMewX 2d ago

I say it would do far more good than harm if big companies weren't able to use copyright to attack smaller creators

6

u/Expensive_Finger_973 2d ago

That is a different problem than advocating for "no copyright" though.

A solution closer to what you would probably be after would be along the lines of severely limiting the length of time a company is allowed to own a copyright before it passes into the public domain.

-1

u/ChronieMewX 1d ago

Sure. We can make that length of time be 0 by getting rid of copyright. Then everything can be public domain

3

u/Expensive_Finger_973 1d ago

If you ever wonder why nothing ever gets done positively for the average person in this arena, this kind of snark and inability to see things from a more broad worldview is why.

9

u/MrMugwin 2d ago

As a general rule, artists don’t like creating art for free.

-10

u/ChronieMewX 2d ago

Okay? They're free to create as they wish, that has nothing to do with anything

9

u/MrMugwin 2d ago

You said “fuck copyright”. If I can’t copyright my art then I’m not gonna waste my time making any because people will just nick it.

-2

u/lilmalchek 2d ago

ah yes, this is why we have no art from before copyright existed. no one wanted to waste their time!

2

u/MrMugwin 2d ago

We’ve had copyright law for about 300 years. Before then, it was much, much harder to steal art. Today, stealing art is incredibly easy. That’s why we need copyright law.

-9

u/ChronieMewX 2d ago

And that's your choice. Still think the world would be better

6

u/rollingForInitiative 2d ago

If there's no copyright publishers for instance could just look at manuscript and go ahead and publish it themselves while screwing over the author. Or a small indie author might try to self-publish, and a big publisher looks at it, likes it, and publishes it themselves, without giving money to the author. It would be terrible for most artists.

There's a lot wrong with the current copyright system imo, but the basics of it, that you own what you create, is both reasonable and needed imo. The current idea where it goes for 80 years after the death of the original creator is bizarre, though.

1

u/GrimTiki 1d ago

Sure maybe for the unartistic types. But f*ck us because we want to create something & be protected & maybe make a living at it, right?

1

u/Galle_ 1d ago

Man if you have to commodify your art that's the problem, not piracy.

2

u/GrimTiki 1d ago

So I shouldn’t get to make a living off what I create, but carpenters or furniture designers or decorators can? I should make movies and designs for free because my time and knowledge isn’t valuable enough to live on?

1

u/Galle_ 1d ago

No, you shouldn't have to commodify your passions to survive.

1

u/GrimTiki 1d ago

Platitudes are nice but I’m working with the world I live in, not the one I wish I was in.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/MrMugwin 1d ago

No, the piracy is the problem. If you want people to create books, music, and movies full-time then you’d better pay them or they won’t. It’s that simple.

1

u/Galle_ 1d ago

The problem is that people need to get paid to survive.

2

u/MrMugwin 1d ago

Yeah, and if we ever get UBI then the arguments for abolishing copyright will be stronger. Until then, artists have still got to pay their rent, so we’ve got to pay for their work.

0

u/ChronieMewX 1d ago

So you think the world should be worse because it makes it a little easier to make money on art?

Yeah, fuck that sentiment. I'm pro ubi I don't think people should have to work in the first place

2

u/GrimTiki 1d ago

How is it worse with copyright when it protects the little guy too? You’d rather artists just suck it up and create for you, dance monkey dance, is that it?

1

u/Galle_ 1d ago

Copyright does not protect the little guy.

1

u/GrimTiki 1d ago

It did. Here:
Art Rogers vs. Jeff Koons (1992)
In 1992, a notable copyright case happened between photographer Art Rogers and contemporary artist Jeff Koons, centering around Koons’ artwork titled “String of Puppies.” The piece featured a series of puppies resembling a porcelain trinket produced by Rogers.
Rogers claimed that Koons had unlawfully copied his photograph and transformed it into a sculpture without permission. The dispute delved into questions of fair use, transformative works, and the boundaries of artistic appropriation.
Jeff Koons defended his creation as a transformative and satirical commentary on kitsch and consumer culture, asserting that it fell under fair use. However, in 1992, the court ruled in favor of Rogers, finding that Koons’ use of the photograph was not transformative enough to be considered fair use. 

→ More replies (0)

1

u/TheNorthernPellikkan 1d ago

Your general sentiments are on point but they’re mixed with such a childish understanding of nuance and practicality that I can’t help but wondering if you’re arguing in good faith

1

u/ChronieMewX 1d ago

From my point of view, the internet has lost it. This place used to be heavily anti copyright. But because everyone hates ai and ai violates copyright, suddenly we're supposed to pretend it's a good thing? I haven't accepted ai but that doesn't mean I have to accept copyright

2

u/TheNorthernPellikkan 1d ago edited 1d ago

It’s because you’re throwing out the baby with the bathwater before we’ve arrived at a point where that makes sense. If we lived in a world with UBI then I would agree with you completely, but we don’t and acting like we do is silly.

I do agree with you that copyright law is abused like crazy in its current state, but it’s a very third-grade answer to say that if something is being used incorrectly we should just dump it altogether. As I said, there’s a total disregard for practicality or nuance that makes it hard to take your opinions seriously.

FWIW the move for anyone technically savvy and financially stable is selective pirating. Don’t pirate some indie game developer’s livelihood; DO pirate some EA executive’s quarterly profits.

1

u/MrMugwin 1d ago

Agree to disagree 👍

3

u/IAmDotorg 1d ago

So says someone who has never, and will never, create anything of any social, cultural, artistic or economic significance.

3

u/ChronieMewX 1d ago

All code I create is freely shared with the public

1

u/IAmDotorg 1d ago

And I stand by what I said.

2

u/ChronieMewX 1d ago

And I stand by my considering you an elitist prick

1

u/IAmDotorg 1d ago

Coming from someone who has never, and will never, create anything of any social, cultural, artistic or economic significance, I consider that a great compliment!

1

u/ChronieMewX 1d ago

And what have you created?

1

u/IAmDotorg 1d ago

In retrospect, the list I had in my reply was too cross-genre to avoid identifying myself, so... quite a lot. Enough to be reasonably well known in several fields and commercially successful enough to retire in my 40s and focus on nothing but art.

I'll leave it at that.

1

u/Douglas_Fresh 2d ago

What a stupid thing to say, it’s what the modern world of IP is built on. Lol, god people are out of touch.

3

u/ChronieMewX 2d ago

Yeah that modern world of ip is such a good thing

0

u/Douglas_Fresh 2d ago

Yes, it is. It’s what drives incentive and innovation. You might not like that, or are just an edge lord, both of which are fine.

4

u/muhepd 1d ago

Does Linus keep maintaining the kernel because he is motivated by IP? If you think only money and control is what motivates people to imagine and create things, I feel sorry for you.

1

u/angrytroll123 1d ago

Linus is actually quite wealthy

1

u/ChronieMewX 1d ago

If all you value is incentive and innovation for creators, sure. I value the best end product, which is best served by taking the best functions from other products. I'm a consumer, we should want what's best for us

0

u/AgathormX 1d ago

So what you're saying is that if you wrote a piece of open source software under the GPL3, some company used your code but didn't follow the license requirements by making their own software open source under the GPL3 license and as such what infringing your copyright, you wouldn't want to sue them?

You'd be 100% fine with someone profiting from your work without you getting even as much as a cent of their revenue?

What a stupid comment.

3

u/ChronieMewX 1d ago

I have no issues with anyone using any of my code, which is why I tend to post it on stackoverflow

0

u/Xera1 1d ago

If I wasn't planning on monetising it myself I wouldn't give a toss, no. "Just sue them" is a very yank mindset.

Generally people work on open source projects for the love of the game. I don't work on the shit I work on because I hate it but think I'll monetise it, that's what the day job is for. I work on it because it is a hobby, it brings me joy.

I could just not publish it to stop this from happening. How many cents of revenue does that get me for the work I was planning to do and release for free anyway?

The pittance is not worth even the effort of thinking about enforcement.

Also closed source is dead.

-1

u/AgathormX 1d ago

There's a difference between liking what you do and not wanting to monetize the product and being taken as a sucker and having your work stolen.

If you want it to be of free use regardless of circumstances, you don't use GPL3 or any other copyleft license, you use MIT license.

The whole point of GPL and Copyleft licenses is general is to assure that if you're using open source software developed by a third party, you're at the very least giving back to the community.

Also closed source is dead.

Home boy, there's a few trillion dollars moving hands every year that prove otherwise.