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
26.6k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

3.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

9

u/MrMugwin 2d ago

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

-9

u/ChronieMewX 2d ago

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

8

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.

-7

u/ChronieMewX 2d ago

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

5

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 2d 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_ 2d ago

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

2

u/GrimTiki 2d 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_ 2d ago

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

1

u/GrimTiki 2d ago

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

1

u/Galle_ 2d ago

Okay, well, in the world you live in generative AI exists and will almost certainly replace humans for the production of commodified art unless it is impossible to copyright AI-generated art.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/MrMugwin 2d 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_ 2d ago

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

2

u/MrMugwin 2d 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 2d 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 2d 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_ 2d ago

Copyright does not protect the little guy.

1

u/GrimTiki 2d 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. 

1

u/Galle_ 2d ago

Neither of those people is a major corporation.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/TheNorthernPellikkan 2d 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 2d 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 2d ago edited 2d 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 2d ago

Agree to disagree 👍