Navigating the complex terrain of intellectual property rights

One of my friends recently expressed surprise at my practice of providing citations on my blog whenever I include a text generated by ChatGPT or a translation produced using the Google Translate web page. I explained to him that I consider it both a moral and ethical obligation to acknowledge and attribute the works of ChatGPT and Google, as they are the rightful owners of these technologies, not me.

To illustrate my point, I drew a parallel with users and members of platforms like DeviantArt and Flickr who consistently cite and credit their cameras, lenses, software, apps, and even the settings used to capture their photographs and create their artworks. By doing so, they uphold intellectual property rights and respect copyright laws.

My friend countered by arguing that people have to pay for these "tools," implying that crediting them is unnecessary. In response, I emphasized that I believe it is morally, ethically, and politely correct to acknowledge and credit the sources we rely on to create various forms of media, literature, and art.

Shifting gears to a different aspect, let's consider the convenience of embracing new technologies. Do we still wash our laundry by hand using water and soap? Or do we find it more practical to leverage modern appliances? Similarly, why should we strain our brains to extract creative ideas when an app like ChatGPT can generate such content for us? While purists may opt to produce their own material and then seek ChatGPT's assistance to edit, refine, and polish the text without compromising their originality, others may find it advantageous to utilize this technology to streamline their creative process.

This discussion prompted me to engage in another debate concerning the ethical considerations surrounding the use of bootleg copies, be it movies, books, music, or other forms of intellectual property. My friend argued that residing in an impoverished country meant we couldn't afford genuine products. In order to stay informed about the advancements of human society, he contended that consuming pirated goods was the only viable option. However, I held a different viewpoint. I firmly expressed my disagreement, asserting that stealing is inherently wrong, regardless of the challenges and disadvantages we may face in our lives.