What if Studio Ghibli directed Lord of the Rings?

[Mistwell]

No. They still have the original art and the product of their labor.

You cut the full response so spun it as not theft because they still have it, but that's not what you or I had said. You had claimed there was no " negative moral implication " remember? There absolutely is a negative moral implication if you profit off someone else's labor without their consent and without compensation to them. You can't spin that. Morally, you should compensate someone if you are profiting off their labor without their consent.

They've lost nothing. Everything they had before remains untouched and unaltered


My point in point three was that in that scenario everything that in that scenario everything that was taken could be recovered by the police and returned and the AI would still remain regardless

No you said ONLY people directly involved in theft are culpable but if you knowingly sell stolen goods, even if you had zero to do with the original theft, you remain culpable.

None of your points are accurate, IF you sell what you make using AI generated from someone else's art without their consent and without any compensation to them.

 

[Bohandas]

You cut the full response so spun it as not theft because they still have it, but that's not what you or I had said. You had claimed there was no " negative moral implication " remember? There absolutely is a negative moral implication if you profit off someone else's labor without their consent and without compensation to them.

There is NO moral entitlement to be able to monetize things. Never!

At the absolute most there is a moral entitlement to not be forcibly prevented from monetizing.

EDIT:
If I stand outside the venue where a rock concert is being held and listen to the music, do you think that that is immoral? What if I sit on my roof on independence day and watch the fireworks from the next town over that isn't the town where I pay taxes in? Must I avert my eyes? What if I buy enough food for me znd a couple of friends and somehow 5000 people end up getting fed? Do I own the baker for the extra people?

 

[Older Beholder]

By this logic identity theft is fine. You still have your identity.

 

[Parmandur]

Fanfic stuff looks like fanfic stuff.

Please don't insult human written fanfic by comparing it to this junk. I don't read fanfic, but it isn't a crime against art.

 

[Bohandas]

By this logic identity theft is fine. You still have your identity.

That's not even remotely similar. Identity theft entails both fraud and depriving someone of money and assets that they already had, whereas IP violation entails neither.

The only way that it might almost be equivalent would be if someone opened a credit card in another person's name, but never used it, and never intended to use it (in which case, who gets hurt???). And even then it still falls short because it still entails fraud that is absent in IP violation

 

[Sacrosanct]

That's not even remotely similar. Identity theft entails both fraud and depriving someone of money and assets that they already had, whereas IP violation entails neither.

It does both actually. It's fraud because you're presenting yourself as the creator/owner when you're not, and it's depriving the actual creator/owner of money and compensation

There's no need for us to argue about this. It's been argued by lawyers in court over and over, and it's pretty well settled. Kinda the whole point behind IP law (trademark and copyright).

 

[Bohandas]

It does both actually. It's fraud because you're presenting yourself as the creator/owner when you're not, and it's depriving the actual creator/owner of money and compensation

The first argument is outright false in most cases; if someone downloads the music of Metallica it's generally to listen to it or to train an AI, not to present themself as Metallica.

As for the second argument, what money that they had do they no longer have after you make a copy? The idea that I can steal from them of some kind of nebulous theoretical future money that they don't have, have never had, and haven't been promised is, quite frankly, ridiculous.

Your side's argument is equivalent to claiming that anyone who doesn;t succeed in business has somehow been cheated. That you have an entitlement to succeed in business that all society must act upon to make happen.

 

[Sacrosanct]

The first argument is outright false in most cases; if someone downloads the music of Metallica it's generally to listen to it or to train an AI, not to present themself as Metallica.

As for the second argument, what money that they had do they no longer have after you make a copy? The idea that I can deprive someone of some kind of nebulous theoretical future money that they don't have, have never had, and haven't been promised is, quite frankly, ridiculous

No, it's not ridiculous. Like I said, no point in us arguing because these definitions, damages, and liabilities in the context of IP violation has been settled already in numerous court proceedings. However, I'd like you to consider that IP violation and theft isn't limited to downloading a Metallica song, and you seem to be ignoring costs associated with IP theft (litigation, reputational costs, etc. that are above and beyond lost income). Costs that hurt the actual IP owner.

I'd suggest before dismissing this as "ridiculous" or not harmful, you actually look up the legal definitions and reasons why they are what they are.

 

[Bohandas]

No, it's not ridiculous. Like I said, no point in us arguing because these definitions, damages, and liabilities in the context of IP violation has been settled already in numerous court proceedings.

I'm not talking legally, I'm talking morally. I know that IP violation is illegal, just like lots of other harmless and innocuous things. Hell, at the federal level even marijuana is still illegal.

Just because something's illegal doesn't mean it's bad; the correlation between "illegal" and "bad" is tenuous at best, and I'm inclined to believe that much of the law is just corrupt nonsense made up to help people turn a profit

 

[Sacrosanct]

I'm not talking legally, I'm talking morally. I know that IP violation is illegal, just like lots of other harmless and innocuous things. Hell, at the federal level even marijuana is still illegal.

Just because something's illegal doesn't mean it's bad; the correlation between "illegal" and "bad" is tenuous at best, and I'm inclined to believe that much of the law is just corrupt nonsense made up to help people turn a profit

So that's a 'no', you won't go look up why it's illegal or how it costs/damages the true IP holder? OK, weird position to take when arguing a position, but I suppose I can't make you. I'm not talking about morality, I'm talking about damages and costs to an IP holder which you claimed either don't exist or are ridiculously negligible.

Have a good day.