Comment by CatWChainsaw
3 years ago
Claiming that a single artist of modest means whose work was used for model training explicitly against their wishes.... is exactly the same as the multibillion corporation doing the training and profiting off it at fleet-of-megayachts scale.... certainly is a take, I'll give you that. If you ever quote "first they came" in a self-pitying context, remember that you deserve it.
The issue of white collar workers finding it harder to support themselves is real and valid. The solution is unionisation, social support nets and potential UBI, that includes all workers.
But campaigning for stricter IP laws only benefits the copyright owners (both you and Disney), a subset of white collar workers, and is still immoral for all the reasons that copyright is immoral in the first place. That is what we're against.
Capitalism is not defined by the relative wealth of individuals. It's defined by ownership. Capitalists own property. Factories, buildings, companies, land, goods, stock, assets, copyrights, patents... All privately owned. If you're an owner, you're a capitalist. It's that simple. You're part of the ownership class. The common serfs? They don't own, they rent.
Claiming you're not a calitalist owner just because you're a poor starving artist, when the government quite literally grants you functionally infinite monopolies over everything you create whether you want it or not, is quite the take indeed. Not my fault artists are prone to selling off the rights to that monopoly to corporations for short term profit. It's like they don't even realize the power they have and the real capitalists are only too happy to relieve them of it.