No, they no longer exist bc they were never sustainable, but they knew that in the first place and sold it as "life time" bc they knew they could make money by lying to customers. Lying is bad and we all agree businesses shouldn't lie, no?
Idk that feels like saying that as soon as you sell the skills you learned on YouTube, you should have to start paying the people you learned from, since you're "using" their copyrighted material to turn profit.
I don't agree whatsoever that copyright extends to inspiration of other artists/data models. Unless they recreate what you've made in a sufficiently similar manor, they haven't copied you.
You need to expand on how learning from something to make money is somehow using the original material to make money. Considering that's how art works in general, I'm having a hard time taking the side of "learning from media to make your own is against copyright". As long as they don't reproduce the same thing as the original, I don't see any issues with it. If they learned from Lord of the rings to then make "the Lord of the rings" then yes, that'd be infringement. But if they use that data to make a new IP with original ideas, then how is that bad for the world/ artists.
Just a quick correction, to just remove ads it's $20, which is ridiculous to ask for a lifetime of something only a few months old (lemmy).
GroggyGuava
joined 1 year ago
No, no I don't think so