Looking within licensing guffaw witin the knowledge economy 🛋🔎

Does nor exist, economists log off. There is the knowledge domain. What they ain't is a scarcity of knowledge. Such a scarcity with what is able to be searched today.

Such a dubious concept, along with the attempt of an intellectual monopoly and monopsony. As if thought can be controlled. Such a matter with idea's concepts and style that are too broad to be categorized with a thing.

This brings a division, on how these matters where tutors tell other artists to use reference, yet not when it comes to copyright, our that such a matter concerned with its own withering and the means to monetize.

These are the alternative laws with regard to displacement with others, with defendants can in regard to maximalism of licensing laws.

From Alix Aviles* second video.

Oh dear, looks like it's going to be a combination of AI and Copyright, yet with such licensing laws there's going to have to be a reimagining with them. Or circumnavigating them, as it merely will make fan iterations impossible.

Copying non-commercially was forever a practice within classical academics, I've done sight size method myself as a manner of teaching Copying were to mean to bring design patterns and their aesthetic axiologies into a new repeatably and consistency.
Copying will help transform and merge

A scientist goes does deep down of the ideology of libertarian, western thought - pro capitalist thought left behind via Ayn Rand. Well, I could draw a line down there, Adam does not know how that from Steven Jay Gould and to the moment of our technocracy of yearning for a sense of control, a matter that transcends copyright and the licensing laws of the ownership to our attention and the control of it with our attentional facilities

That reminds me when it's comes to AI within the idea of making our own ideas with controlling the conversation, aiming for the outsider.

1:34 hours (Yeah there was criticism where the sponsor previously, yet welcome to the machine of entertainment that we live in. )
*Anywhere, here's the vid

That's curious, that was a different definition of accelerationist, (Maybe he's using a different definition which I don't hold. The direct action plan sounds well, though. Also with something off-base with certain sources such as Mark Fischers miserablism.

It's all.. Mild and inoffensive, though, all things considered. Even with the direct action strategy.

Yet the legal battle, I can't really join in that circus.

(This one is on my to-read list, so many on the bucket list.)

Tom scott also did a video in regard to other work

Patricia also did a video in regard to understanding the licensing laws. It's not going to be easy.

Well, imagining other means such as a right to the city and other means of direct action is a anarchist methodology of accomplishing that's also suitable. Also, the handshake deal that is taken for granted. Such as a simplicity on that with a written agreement.

The copyright industry complex. Urgh. Why are so many willing to die on that hill?

Has our licensing laws every been pro-worker? Look at those perverse incentives.

As with the naturalistic reductionists with what happened with religion, so will there be a trend with our own licensing laws. What I also dislike about this reductionism that it reduces all aesthetic energy to how much will commodify it, the get-rich-and-famous contract. Something wiggling inside me is telling my that's not art.

So, to confirm.

LLM and Diffusion models are remixing tech that's mindless and iterative to our designs. Only through the deal that ain't contingent of NDA's and several escrow payments and paperwork, we could do work or anti-work that makes a difference.

Thoughts...

My editorial:

I tend to prioritize fraudulent behaviour than ontological perfection of IP/Copyright. John Lockian property rights are a liberal conception that can lead into petty sport of the printing press. (Even John Locke opposed monopoly, btw)

I don't like either the diffusion model training data and copyright. It's catnip to industrialists because they are about faster and cheaper product.

I'm currently doing more journalism within the legalese stuff, this gets quite

 editorial and even into political and economical matters.
Never underestimate the simple, direct transaction over complex.

Since property rights are easier to argue from an industrialist due to capital, it's only a matter of not playing their game. Only a different game and system that the independent not dependent of the commercial industry.

( Oh and if they decide to content ID this article on Goofy being incredibly hot, they erm I guess I told you so. Guess entertainment ain't an amorphous blob. )
Guess I'll have to preserve it here for great justice.

I guess this is a matter of taking a deep breath. Along with focusing on the main struggle. I guess that's enough of this hornets nest of da industry.

All rights reserved is an outdated licensing term btw. Bears repeating