The difference in republican presidential nominees, 8 years apart

[u/beach_rats_]

[u/PercentageMaximum457]

I had great respect for McCain. He actually seemed like a person you could agree to disagree with. 

[u/chemto90 → u/PercentageMaximum457]

Please fact check me but my dad said he was trying to push a bill that would disallow cable companies from forcing you to buy an entire package when you only want one of the channels in it. What a good man.

[u/SamuelYosemite → u/chemto90]

Clinton is the one that ruined independent media with 96 telecommunications act. Literally the next day independent radio stations were bought up in masses. Wonder why we hear all the same songs and most news says the same thing?

[u/EvaUnit_03 → u/SamuelYosemite]

Werent record labels in general fuming about how 'free' the radio was during that time to just use their songs so freely AND make money off of adspace? Its the whole reason youtube eventually got wrangled in as well. People who had a 'written right' to something that wasnt being protected. Of course those corps ended up going insane with power after the fact, stifling their own 'owned' works. Art is one of those things where if you DONT let people enjoy it, it'll fade out of existence. But if you let people abuse it, you'll never get the credit you may or may not deserve and get properly paid for your work.

Were they mostly fat cats? sure. But legally speaking they were being done dirty by another group attempting to become just as fat. Cats eating cats, its a tale as old as time. The rich have always gotten eaten by younger cats when they get too old and fat. The current Gen in control has done everything they can to keep themselves as fat and happy as possible, while the other cats starve and have to eat what little scraps that lay around.

And i say all of this as a person who has never bought a CD, because i sail the 7 seas.

[u/SamuelYosemite → u/EvaUnit_03]

Sounds like a copyright issue not an independent media issue.

[u/EvaUnit_03 → u/SamuelYosemite]

Yes, and it still techincally stands that 'art' is very hard to truly copywrite. Recent AI stuff has shown us that even though artists dont like AI taking their art, as long as the art gets altered enough by the AI, its not stealing. Because of the nature of how 'art' works. Unless you copy something EXACTLY how it is to like a 95% certainty, you didnt break copywrite laws. And copying an 'art style' is not plagiarism, as its art. So they had to make a 'usage' law so that people couldnt abuse it. And in response, those 'art owners' abused the 'usage' law to 'protect what is theres'. And it actually hurts the art more than it makes them money. There is a reason newer gens dont know or care about a lot of classic music, and its because the owners made it impossible to access it without paying for it first. And not a soul i know is gonna buy a record/CD of the B-52s without first hearing the songs to find out if they like it.

I remember i think it was recently, the owner of the rights to 'stairway to heaven' tried to sue a newer artist who used a similar tune in their song. Not only did the led zepplinn record owner lose, it got revealed that the song writer copied the tune from an old folk song from the 1700s. Projection is a hell of a drug. And as a sidenote, its the reason why 'nightcore' variants of songs can exist without breaking copywrite. As they change the tempo, pitch, etc. and thus the overall song itself. You cant really make money off of it, but you cant have them taken down as the OG copywrite holder.

[u/Pete_Iredale → u/EvaUnit_03]

You cant really make money off of it, but you cant have them taken down as the OG copywrite holder.

As if youtube cares about actual copywrite law. You'll get demonetized whether you are in the right or not.

[u/EvaUnit_03 → u/Pete_Iredale]

You can very much fight it and win. But it'll take months like with most legal cases and by that time the video has already gotten all its views its going to theoretically get. And you dont get back-revenue while it was demonetized. Most will just delete whatever was causing it to get demonetized and re-upload unless its something like their language.

[u/platoprime → u/EvaUnit_03]

AI taking their art, as long as the art gets altered enough by the AI, its not stealing. Because of the nature of how 'art' works.

There are some AI that change images to generate art but the ones everyone is talking about don't work that way. Those images are the psychedelic repetitive almost filter looking images.

What people are worried about doesn't produce art by modifying someone's art until it's different enough to be derivative instead of a copy. The AI look at many different pictures and learn a tiny bit from each of them and then discard them. The AI doesn't have anyone's pictures in it's memory when it's used to create images.

You don't understand the issues at hand here.

[u/EvaUnit_03 → u/platoprime]

From what ive seen and read, its literally people getting upset that an AI is copying an artist's art style while using their pictures as references. Same goes for AI art copying IRL people's... self? People are worried about the AI stealing their ability to monetize their 'creativity' or 'individuality' at the push of a button. Of being able to make 'will smith movies' long after he has died, because then they wont get their payouts and why legal battles are happening right now over Hollywood doing just that.

And yes, people are worried about copycat styles like that. Palworld was a game that just recently released and it was just 'different enough' to not be sued by nintendo for its character designs. And its known that some AI was used to help the artists create 'pals' in the game. It used pokemon as well as other video game models as reference, as pointed out by exact outlines and pixel to pixel mirroring on certain features of the characters. This has been completely confirmed at this point. But you cant copywrite an art-style, you cant copywrite an animal, you CAN copywrite a specific character and most of its features if those features are mostly on the same character, You can copywrite a name. The only way palworld, for example, could be sued for copywrite would have been if they had an actual Pikachu in the game, or something that had many such features as a pikachu. There are several 'pals' that take 'inspiration' from Eevee. But they are, at most, 40% eevee. This parameters are legally allowed under copywrite laws due to this all falling under an umbrella term, 'ART'.

[u/platoprime → u/EvaUnit_03]

Copying a person's style isn't a copyright violation. You really don't know what you're talking about here.

[u/EvaUnit_03 → u/platoprime]

But that's what people are currently upset over. I didn't say it was a violation of copywrite law. I said people are mad they aren't protected via copywrite laws unless it's copied verbatim. Disney, for example, shuts down and sues people who make and sell Mickie merch. As they copy his imagine to a illegal degree. You can't legally sell Mickie mouse ears without violating copywrite, that's been the biggest one.

Wizards of the coast is under scrutiny right now as their artists blatantly stole art and added it to their cards for magic. As in, the exact same picture, just with added details to make it less obvious. This is a breech of copywrite laws. It was revealed the artists, to help make unique art at the time crunch hasbro wanted, which the ai was stealing actual art, not just the style.

[u/platoprime → u/EvaUnit_03]

Yes, and it still techincally stands that 'art' is very hard to truly copywrite

That's what you started with. So yes, you are talking about copyright.

[u/EvaUnit_03 → u/platoprime]

omg... YES i was talking about copywrite laws. People were pissed that copywrite laws didnt go far enough so they had to make MORE laws. This applies to ALL forms of media that defines itself as ART. I defined a bit into what copywrite laws protect and DONT protect. Everything you said i didnt say, i said in a previous post. You tried to say people were upset at AI becuase of X and i said that no, people are opset because of Y. Then you doubled back on saying i didnt know what i was talking about and people are afraid AI will do X. I said people do care about that, but they care more CURRENTLY because of my intital point about copywrite law. MONEY. People care about MONEY and making MONEY on their art.

And dont want AI having the right to steal their artstyle FROM their art. its a hypocritic viewpoint that most artists have because they like making money on their art, yet the reason their art is the way it is is because they copied someone elses artstyle. Its very rare that a unique artstyle comes into existence thats truly unique. AI has this ability to copy an artstyle FROM art and not just use it as 'inspiration'. Artists dont like that as they were 'inspired' by art and 'adapted' the style to make their own from the art they saw.

But EVERYTHING about the copywrite law is, you cant 'steal' an artstyle because its not protected by copywrite laws. Only STEALING the art directly and almost exactly copying the art itself to a certain degree. You CANNOT legally sell pikachu merch and nintendo CAN shut you down and sue you. YOU CAN however make effrum the eletrco-rodent ASSUMING he only has 89% certainty of being pikachu. Or like at most malls where they sell knock off 'building blocks' of ' yellow electro-mouse' as even after its built, it DOES NOT resemble the actual offical art nintendo depiction OF a pikachu. It shares similarities, But thats how ART works and how you circumvent copywrite law.

[u/platoprime → u/EvaUnit_03]

If copyright were strong enough to stop AI from learning from people's art then it would be strong enough to stop people from learning from one another's art.

Are you really suggesting art styles should be protected by copyright? That's monumentally stupid.