- Joined
- Jul 2, 2025
I know that at least the "artwork" made by diffusion models are copyright free, so that people who spam that dogshit like crazy can't just sell it. (They still do, because people are fucking brainless apes)
Open Source Software Community - it's about ethics in Code of Conducts
- Thread starter CrunkLord420
- Start date
-
Want to keep track of this thread?
Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
Create account
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2022
Lacking copyright isn't the same thing as lacking the ability to be sold legally, not that this should be considered copyright-free regardless. Try training a program, any program, on Disney's films and see how that argument goes.
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2019
But even if you do have a "copyright-free" work, you can just do some additional edits to it and the resulting work will have a joint copyright.
The copyright of the original work (that may or may not be under copyright) and then secondly your edits that are under YOUR copyright.
If someone wants to redistribute that joint work it is THEIR responsibility to identify and remove your edits that are under your copyright and if they fail to do so you can sue them.
Publishing houses have been doing this for literally ages. Minor edits to Mary Shelley's Frankenstein or any other work in public domain, publish it as a joint work and no one can copy their edited version. (you can still copy and distribute the original version, or course)
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2019
No. AGPL+nigger is a modified AGPL license that includes the word nigger in the license. Removing the word nigger invalidates the license.
This is why relying on AI to think for you is a bad idea.
Kokonut Kangs Klan
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2025
Firefox 4%, Brave 1% according to CuckFlare. More like 6% to 1% if you filter to America and drop the niggerphone OSes. Nobody uses Brave
(But yes Mozilla is run by fags, everyone knows)Are you talking about dropping XUL/XPCOM APIs? I thought those only worked in Firefox anyways? There was NPAPI and some other shit from Netscape days, but I thought those were for plugins.
I do miss the old ways (especially XUL) and Mozilla has repeatedly shit the bed for extension backwards compatibility. I remember when they first switched to rapid release and every major version (around 3.5, 4, 5) broke extensions, and I joined the Chrome folx for a while after that until it stabililzed. The newer APIs aren't any less standard than that, but fill me in if I'm being retarded and forgetting something.
Userscripts are also just better than extensions sometimes, I use the right tool for the job:
- They run with fewer permissions than a full extension. No matter how many userscripts you run, you only need to trust one extension with those higher privileges.
- Inspecting source is simpler and naturally encouraged by sharing scripts in plaintext, this is good for the open Internet. Only nerds unpack their extension zips to look inside, and userscripts never minify or obfuscate all their shit, because being open is the point.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2025
I guess I wasn't too clear (I wasn't too clear of mind anyway). My point was that you can just steal these faggots' "work", pass it off as your own, make a shitload of money in the process and they'd have no legal underground to pursue. You can pirate their shitty Patreon content on Kemono and they can do nothing. You can use any of "their works", be-it porn, video-game assets, absolute literature-based horsedrivel, it doesn't matter, it's been shown to not have any copyright onto it because it had no human input besides the model (which is protected by copyright) and the prompt used (which can be argued as to being protected by copyright, some people make "prompt creators", whereby they only have to ask to make prompts to some fucking AI (Actual Indian) or chatbot for their diffusion garbage). At least legally. I'm sure YouTube and the likes are foaming at the mouth to protect any creative work, be-it by a human or computer, as long as it's in their database of creative works.
And boy do they get pissed off when you do so or make fun of them. There's AI-derangement syndrome and there's AI syndrome. If you want to have a gander at that, DeviantArt hosts most of these lunatics, it's BlueSky levels of pathetic, blocking you after writing on your profile how "you're such a meanie head!".
Copyright is there to protect artists from China-like copycattery, letting them earn revenue for creative work while not letting them get comfortable with it as there's a time limit (which has ultimately failed at doing its job, death + two centuries is way too fucking much, Disney, filthy Jewish rats). As long your alteration of the medium does not affect the original work's market or intention, you're under the Fair Use argument. Which is why you can have parodies of, ex. Kung Fu Panda by Cas van der Pol, which one could consider an infringement on someone's creative idea of Kung Fu Panda, but it's not a substitute for the original, it's a parody work based on the original idea, in a different medium. Reviews are the same way, whereby someone shows their opinion on a piece of work, which would necessarily include the film itself, but it's not a substitute of the original media. Public Domain completely subsides that, you can do literally anything you want with it, even republish it in its original form, share it, pirate it, doesn't matter, it's public domain. Which is why you see so many fucking adaptions of classical literature in media, you can do anything with it. You're allowed to make your own Snow White movie, but you are not allowed to make a Disney's Snow White movie, because that's a different creative work than the original Snow White (especially the new one, goddamn).
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2022
No. Copyright is there to protect exclusive control over copying, regardless of whether that control is necessary, proportional, or even beneficial to the creator. Many artists are actively harmed by copyright through gatekeepers, rights holders, and asymmetries in copyright enforcement. It's there primarily to benefit intermediaries with legal departments.
Plus, it rests on the ridiculous premise that copying deprives the original creator of a thing of use, possession, or control of their own work. If copying were inherently wrongful, then every act of learning, influence, or iteration would be bad and culture would freeze. The entire history of art, science, and engineering would be retroactively criminal.
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2025
Thanks for not reading my post, retard. I said it utterly failed at its job.
Foundinglaunderer
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2024
(no bias I swear lol) but why is the entire linux community troons.
the coding socks memes and all that retarded fag shit
the coding socks memes and all that retarded fag shit
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2023
Everything you're describing is literally an attribute of property. I can make something and sell it, and then it can be sold and sold again and if different people value it differently or use it for something differently, the price may fluctuate. If I make a pair of skis and sell them for $100, and someone makes $1 a day of profit renting them every season for years and years and makes more money off them, I'm not stuck in some Kafkaesque world of shit that only benefits intermediaries with legal departments.
You can disagree with the notion of intellectual property but everything that follows is a product of that decision and not some deviant behavior by everyone else doing exactly what they would do if it were property or stocks or money.
As for the "[t]he entire history of art, science, and engineering," copyright wasn't an issue because patroage directly paid for the product. Michaelangelo wouldn't own the copyright to the Sistine Chapel, the Church would because they paid him to do it. It's not like before copyright people could literally liquidate their artistic genius into money as god intended and they can't now. That's also why some copyright systems insist on the name of the creator to be identified, and that's really all those people got.
As for crushing inspiration, it turns out most people are just shit writers. Look at all off the dreck on the Internet. As far as engineering, how the world looked before and after patents speaks for itself.
It's not that intellectual property is a great system, it's just I don't know what's supposed to be so much better. Sounds like commie shit to me.
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2022
It succeeded at its job of fucking over everything. It only failed at what you delusionally think its job is.
The reason property exists and works is because it solves conflict.
You and I cannot eat the same piece of bread at the same time, and to solve that possible conflict, the decision over who gets excluded is made by the owner
Now pray tell, what conflict is solved by intellectual property rights?
Is there a physical or ontological conflict over the use of a melody or a pattern or information? Can there even be such a thing? Does me whistling a melody deprive you of your capacity to whistle the same melody?
"Intellectual property rights" introduce conflict where there previously was none, therefore they are unethical
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2023
It's OK to download the movie, bro, you don't need a philosophy to justify it.
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2024
Since the ai conversation is still going. Looks like stack overflow is basically dead at this point. It has the same number of questions it did in the first month it started. Definitely the end of an era in some sense.
The user base of brave specifically obviously wasn't going to be close to the size of chrome, but that's not my point. I'm saying a browser with the same webengine, that most of the web actively tries to support, because that's the thing they care about working. And with brave you can at least still have the adblocking from firefox. In the past I would have said that having firefox around was more important. But really they aren't competition to google, they're a sock puppet of google. And the only redeeming thing about it is google killed manifest v2 extensions. If firefox decided to move off of them. I'm not sure what reason people would have to use it at all anymore.Firefox 4%, Brave 1% according to CuckFlare. More like 6% to 1% if you filter to America and drop the niggerphone OSes. Nobody uses Brave
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2025
>polite people asking questions
>snarky dickheads responses
>chatgpt often responds not only more correctly but is quicker at it
There is literally no reason to use StackOverflow anymore, if the userbase wasn't made up of basically Redditors but with an even bigger God-complex I'd be sympathetic. At least when I tell ChatGPT it's incorrect, it says "I'm sorry". StackOverflow users would respond with "I'm sorry... that you're this retarded to not see my answer as correct".
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2018
autism and trooning out is linked
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2023
Could someone smart enough sue them for it already? Corpos shouldn't be able to use AI slop code in closed source projects since "AI" was trained on bunch of GPL code. If ReactOS can't steal code from Windows leaks directly then why ML slop can do an equivalent?
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2025
Since this is the unofficial Microsoft cow thread: the kind of mental retardation that can only be supported by monopoly power.
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2019
To save everyone valuable minutes that would be wasted on watching ragebait slop: Microsoft renamed Office 365 to Copilot 365 only to appease investors, since Copilot = AI and AI = free money.
Literally none of this AI bullshit would be happening if Dodge v. Ford was overturned and corpos couldn't just woo investors and get infinite money. Microsoft renaming Office to Copilot to tell their investors "look, look! People are using Copilot! AI is the future!" is just another episode of the AI bubble retardation, but of course because it's Microsoft there has to be five dozen of slop videos acting like Microsoft is some Machiavellian cartoon supervillain that personally despises you, God forbid people look at this shit with logic and reason and see the blatant shallow truth of it. Investor wooing.
>he won
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2025
No, it's just mental retardation to make the marketing department feel like they're doing something.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
You can train on Disney, but the characters are copyrighted, so if you use it to generate those characters, or even draw them yourselves, they're fucking Disney, they'll grind you down into library paste if you piss them off, right or wrong legally, who cares?
Yes, characters can be copyrighted.
Go ahead and try to make a James Bond movie.