It hit me this morning that often what I find frustrating in discussions around "intellectual property", piracy, large datasets for training things like CLIP, &c. is that IP is a really really poor substitute for actually useful conversations around consent and respect

Like Elsevier asking me to "pwease no steal uwu" about journal articles is very different than, like, an individual selling self-published books on the side saying "hey I need this money to pay rent, so please purchase it legit"

An artist saying "hey I don't like for-profit companies building generators from my work that I posted to deviant art" is very different than Disney cracking down on people making shit with characters they "own".

Someone saying "hey this is really personal work, I don't really want it passed around and edited without my consent" is not the same as pebbleyeet getting mad at anti-fash edits of his comics.

IP is bullshit but that doesn't mean we have to take unnuanced all-or-nothing approaches to things.

That would be like saying if you want to support squatters taking over an airbnb then you can't have a lock on your bathroom door: it's conflating such wildly different things that it's a little silly.

@left_adjoint mostly I think this comes down to "we should be able to have conversations about respect and consent without falling into a trap where the most decisive element is 'property'?"
@mxmxyz Exactly! That is exactly my point!

@mxmxyz property is a blunt instrument based in capitalistic ideas

autonomy, consent, the needs of the individual, respecting someone's wishes, understanding that art can be an extension of one's self, &c. are just some of the myriad factors and concerns that are getting bundled together as "property"

which only serves to help people who already have power and disadvantage those that already don't

@left_adjoint @mxmxyz Universal Basic Income and citing your sources have nothing to do with intellectual property law, and are often harmed by them.