Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Geek Talk & Media
AI is stealing writers’ words and jobs…
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Jfdlsjfd" data-source="post: 9290949" data-attributes="member: 42856"><p>I beg to differ. Terms like theft carry a moral weight other infractions do not. Tax evasion can be described as theft using a broad definition, and yet many people wouldn't balk at deducting non eligible expanses. I think using them inappropriately could be way to make things look worse than they really are. It can be an approximation (and therefore it would be nitpicking to point it out) or an hyperbole (and thus deserving pointing out to defuse the rhetorical effect).</p><p></p><p>Also, it's especially important because it crosses international boundaries to be precise, because several countries can find several solutions to the problem, each adapted to their own situation (no copyright (San Marino), no art [aren't some muslim countries banning the representation of man altogether? or is it a thing of the past], opt-out, opt-in, no AI [Dune?])... There is no reason that what is good for the people of X is good for the people of Y. There are countries that make mandatory things that are forbidden in other and many more examples of things deemed totally harmless in some that are offenses elsewhere. Those countries can be both right at the same time.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>By using the word "fair", you're positionning the debate into the field of morality. Everyone is using people's work without fair compensation. We don't pay anything to the inventors of the language we use, to the people who designed the numbers we use... because the law has made boundaries on the limit of time copyright protection applies to. Why is X years fair, and X-1 unfair? It's a tough question, but that's the job of lawmakers to take every view into account and produce texts that are optimal. Also, we are all dwarfs sitting on the shoulders of giants, and nobody would imagine that a scientist who make a breakthrough is a thief because he worked on the ideas of others without compensation. That ideas and concept can't be protected is also legal, but could be seen as unfair by a definiton as wide as "using people's work".</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And would it change anything? What is your stance on open source weights, who by definition don't earn anything to their author? This a concrete example, not an abstract theoretical one, as many very good LLM are open-source.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>No, but it compensate creators in general, who had access to free education in art, free museums with extensive displays to get their inspiration from, public infrastructure like the Internet and grew in peaceful enough countries that they could become artists instead of being enrolled in a militia. Collective compensation is as fair as individual compensation, from a moral perspective, if it is devoted to enrich the social background that made learning artistic skills possible. Car pollutes, fumes diminish the quality of life of people and yet they are not compensated individually, but fuel taxes are devoted (in part) to fund environmental policies, so the damage I sustain by living in a city is compensated by having a natural reserve at the other side of the world. Do you think it's unfair? I don't. A fair compensation doesn't necessarily mean an individual compensation.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I am not what if'ing. I am proposing solutions, based on existing process not unlike the one you describe. That you felt robbed isn't something I'll dispute, and as a user of CD to store archive of data, I felt robbed by a similar policy of having to pay a tax despite not using it to infringe copyright (in France's case, it's was implemented as a tax on physical media). Interested parties have a hard time determining what's best, because of course their own interest blur the thing. At the time I'd have said "it's not my problem, the artists should just sue whomever is using CD to copy films and music instead of robbing me for using my own data", which was materially unfeasible. It took a lot of restraint to see that it was the a good possible middle ground, especially when funding public policies instead of being reversed to a few "big names" production houses.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Jfdlsjfd, post: 9290949, member: 42856"] I beg to differ. Terms like theft carry a moral weight other infractions do not. Tax evasion can be described as theft using a broad definition, and yet many people wouldn't balk at deducting non eligible expanses. I think using them inappropriately could be way to make things look worse than they really are. It can be an approximation (and therefore it would be nitpicking to point it out) or an hyperbole (and thus deserving pointing out to defuse the rhetorical effect). Also, it's especially important because it crosses international boundaries to be precise, because several countries can find several solutions to the problem, each adapted to their own situation (no copyright (San Marino), no art [aren't some muslim countries banning the representation of man altogether? or is it a thing of the past], opt-out, opt-in, no AI [Dune?])... There is no reason that what is good for the people of X is good for the people of Y. There are countries that make mandatory things that are forbidden in other and many more examples of things deemed totally harmless in some that are offenses elsewhere. Those countries can be both right at the same time. By using the word "fair", you're positionning the debate into the field of morality. Everyone is using people's work without fair compensation. We don't pay anything to the inventors of the language we use, to the people who designed the numbers we use... because the law has made boundaries on the limit of time copyright protection applies to. Why is X years fair, and X-1 unfair? It's a tough question, but that's the job of lawmakers to take every view into account and produce texts that are optimal. Also, we are all dwarfs sitting on the shoulders of giants, and nobody would imagine that a scientist who make a breakthrough is a thief because he worked on the ideas of others without compensation. That ideas and concept can't be protected is also legal, but could be seen as unfair by a definiton as wide as "using people's work". And would it change anything? What is your stance on open source weights, who by definition don't earn anything to their author? This a concrete example, not an abstract theoretical one, as many very good LLM are open-source. No, but it compensate creators in general, who had access to free education in art, free museums with extensive displays to get their inspiration from, public infrastructure like the Internet and grew in peaceful enough countries that they could become artists instead of being enrolled in a militia. Collective compensation is as fair as individual compensation, from a moral perspective, if it is devoted to enrich the social background that made learning artistic skills possible. Car pollutes, fumes diminish the quality of life of people and yet they are not compensated individually, but fuel taxes are devoted (in part) to fund environmental policies, so the damage I sustain by living in a city is compensated by having a natural reserve at the other side of the world. Do you think it's unfair? I don't. A fair compensation doesn't necessarily mean an individual compensation. I am not what if'ing. I am proposing solutions, based on existing process not unlike the one you describe. That you felt robbed isn't something I'll dispute, and as a user of CD to store archive of data, I felt robbed by a similar policy of having to pay a tax despite not using it to infringe copyright (in France's case, it's was implemented as a tax on physical media). Interested parties have a hard time determining what's best, because of course their own interest blur the thing. At the time I'd have said "it's not my problem, the artists should just sue whomever is using CD to copy films and music instead of robbing me for using my own data", which was materially unfeasible. It took a lot of restraint to see that it was the a good possible middle ground, especially when funding public policies instead of being reversed to a few "big names" production houses. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Geek Talk & Media
AI is stealing writers’ words and jobs…
Top