Oh yeah, I forgot artists are spiritual creatures who don't have to eat. It certainly isn't the only reason to create but a necessary condition to actually be a professional artist, no ?

Reread my comment again. If your __only__ motivation is money, you will have a problem.

I agree it’s necessary to pay artists - but we don’t need copyright for that! There are many tried and proven alternatives.

>There are many tried and proven alternatives.

Other than patronage, what is there?

Also, patronage is garbage, in my opinion. It ensures artists are exclusively either already wealthy, or well connected. It also helps ensure that the wealthy are most often represented in the art created; for some reason this seems like a bad idea to me.

copyright based scarcity is effectively dead for anyone with an Internet connection anyway

honestly I think a gratuity model may become dominant with or without any legal changes at this point

you'll often see on YouTube patreon revenue equally or dwarfing ads the reliance of the music industry on merch seems similar too*

I think people are more willing than you'd think to pay for art simply because they understand it won't exist without money.

*(if that sounds like a stretch, consider if in a world devoid of copyright, whether a Walmart printed band shirt for cheap would be equivalent for most purchasers to the same shirt sold by the actual artist )

So naive lol. How many independent, unconnected rich artists were born pre and post YouTube for instance?

No idea - do you know?

Why don't you just ask for an increase in the allowance from your family trust fund? People have become so lazy nowadays, they can't even be bothered to have a hard talk about their financial estate with their rich grand-papá anymore.

Your unwillingness to pay doesn't give you the right to steal, that only gives you the right to not take the deal and walk away.

What exactly am I stealing if I don't take the deal, walk away and then enjoy an AI-generated artwork that just so happens to resemble the thing closely instead? I'd think that stealing requires taking something away from someone, regardless of how hard certain industries try to gaslight me into expanding the definition to protect their business model.

Stop trying to gaslight yourself into thinking what you are doing isn't morally wrong.

If you do not agree with their business model, don't get involved with their business, at all. Your disagreement doesn't give you the right to exploit flaws in their methods to protect their business. Just like the fact you don't want to pay for something doesn't grant you the right to exploit the fact that the laws of physics allow you to just grab something you didn't pay for with your hand and run away with it.

You still equate copyright infringement with physical theft. They are not the same.

In what sense would I be running away with something? The original thing is still there, to the extent you can talk about data being somewhere.

I don't think I need to "gaslight myself" into anything; as far as I can tell, making a copy has not ever felt morally wrong to me.

> Your disagreement doesn't give you the right

If I fully believe in the concept of fair use and transformative content, then yes it absolutely is my right to take advantage of generative AI.

Fair use is a common concept used in all sorts of media.

You don't get to hand wave that away just because generative AI is getting good.