I’ve generally been against giving AI works copyright, but this article presented what I felt were compelling arguments for why I might be wrong. What do you think?

  • adderaline@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    But not having copyright law doesn’t fix that, it makes it worse. Without copyright law if you make music, a big label can grab your music and sell copies without paying you anything. Sure you can try to sell it yourself and try to educate customers that they should buy it from you. But the big label can easily out-advertise you and get into the top spots on streaming services, online and physical stores etc. and get 99% of the sales.

    this is… really not a good example of copyright stopping this sort of stuff. seriously, look into streaming platforms, they are essentially pulling this exact stunt, down to the part about grabbing artists’ music and not paying them anything, and its been extremely profitable for the record companies, who have been found to deliberately manipulate streaming numbers to ensure they get the top spots. most independent artists make very little off of streaming, but are compelled to participate because its captured so much of the market for music. i really can’t exaggerate here, the situation you’re describing as what would happen without copyright law is happening right now, and is being facilitated directly by copyright law as it currently exists.

      • metaridley@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Pretty much what happens now–name and shame, get the story out there. If McDonald’s wanted to plaster a billboard with someone’s personal family photos, the odds that that family could even afford a lawyer for recourse to an appropriate degree is essentially nil. What would likely happen is that McDonald’s would settle for some absurdly low dollar value and perhaps take down the billboards–or just as likely, negotiate for use in the settlement agreement, saying “take this and let us use the photo or we’ll see you in court.”

        If someone gets a reputation for stealing others’ work continuously, who is ever going to work with them?

      • adderaline@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        copyleft. make contributions voluntary, credit mandatory, and commercialization impossible. gift your creations to the collective knowledge of humanity, and if people like it, they will in turn give you support. cut out corporate middle men, and cultivate an audience that will reward you generously for what you give to them.

    • upstream@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Your point of view needs corrective lenses.

      Streaming (as a legal business model) is not violating copyright, but streaming changed the business model for a lot of artists negatively.

      That’s because in the old days people would buy an album just to listen to a song or two. So basically you get paid up-front for an infinite amount of playbacks.

      With streaming artists and copyright holders are paid after the fact, based on the amount of playbacks.

      This means singles are much more important than albums, because people don’t really listen to albums like they used to, and if I really like a song and play it a lot it will take a long time before the artist makes an equivalent amount of money as to me buying an album.

      It should be fairly obvious that the big record companies come out of this change of business model a lot better because they have a continuous stream of revenue across their played/consumed portfolio, but smaller labels face the same difficulty as the artists.

      This has nothing to do with copyright law - which you decide to focus on.

      But remove copyright law and no-one is getting paid for anything.

      The problem you are complaining about is how labels are milking artists, in lack of a better analogy. A cow gets fed and cared for just enough to make sure milk production keeps going and the cow stays healthy.

      A farmer doesn’t cry when a cow gets old and slaughtered, he’ll get a new cow to replace her. That’s just how the business works.

      While musical artists are obviously more sentient than cows, record labels follow a fairly similar business model. Help them become creators and make money on the produce.

      Obviously not a perfect analogy, but the discrepancy between what the label earns and the artist is nothing new and anyone who was around before streaming should know this.

      • adderaline@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Streaming (as a legal business model) is not violating copyright, but streaming changed the business model for a lot of artists negatively.

        my point is that people seem to think copyright law is somehow protecting artists from corporate exploitation, when it categorically is not doing that. you’re right, streaming as a business model is legal, and it does mean that lots of artists don’t profit as much from their work. that’s the part i object to, the part where copyright law did not in any way prevent record companies from eating into artist compensation.

        It should be fairly obvious that the big record companies come out of this change of business model a lot better because they have a continuous stream of revenue across their played/consumed portfolio, but smaller labels face the same difficulty as the artists.

        here’s the thing, though. the revenue is being generated on the basis of their ownership of that portfolio, and the only way that works is if there is an enforcement mechanism for that ownership. that enforcement mechanism is copyright law. that state of things as they currently exists allows people who did not make music to make the vast majority of the money from the music that gets made. that is wrong.

        But remove copyright law and no-one is getting paid for anything.

        they already aren’t getting paid though. copyright law just isn’t ensuring people get paid. like, have you paid attention to the WGA strike at all? companies use copyright law to legally strip the rights artists have over their art far more often than artists use it to prevent their art from being used by corporations.

        The problem you are complaining about is how labels are milking artists, in lack of a better analogy. A cow gets fed and cared for just enough to make sure milk production keeps going and the cow stays healthy. A farmer doesn’t cry when a cow gets old and slaughtered, he’ll get a new cow to replace her. That’s just how the business works.

        look. i really don’t care how business works. if it’s depriving people of the fruits of their own labor, we should make it work a different way. in any case, making a comparison to a system of agriculture which routinely tortures living beings, forcibly impregnates them, steals the milk meant for their babies, then kills them when they are no longer useful is not the slam dunk you think it is. i’m not particularly fond of that business model either.

        Obviously not a perfect analogy, but the discrepancy between what the label earns and the artist is nothing new and anyone who was around before streaming should know this.

        right. i’m fully aware this isn’t a streaming only problem, but its one that streaming has exacerbated. that doesn’t make it more okay. functionally, the fact that we have a mechanism by which the legal ownership of artistic works can be transferred to corporate entities concentrates the wealth generated by working artists into the hands of rich executives. i don’t know how i’m meant to ignore the way in which ownership of music is the primary mechanism by which record companies separate the wealth that music produces from the artists that make all the music, no matter how much its actually supposed to make doing that more difficult.

        • upstream@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Obviously I’m doing a poor job at getting my points through if you think I’m arguing for the current state of affairs.

          It doesn’t mean I’m against copyright.

          The principle of copyright is important, so is copy-left (eg. GPL).

          Being for copyright doesn’t mean I am against artists being paid their fair share. These are not contradictory principles.

          There are certainly huge problems with parts of copyright legislation, especially in the US, and in particular the DMCA.

          I always recommend this TED Talk where Larry Lessig talks about the issues with DMCA, and even though it’s starting to get old now it’s still just as relevant and he is still just as on point:

          https://youtu.be/7Q25-S7jzgs

          However, the fact that you don’t care about how business works means you ignore the root of the problem - how business works.

          I’m not going to argue for communism, but when politicians are for sale to the highest bidder the rest of us lose out.

          Feel free to dive into other videos with Larry Lessig if the first one hits home.

          I would particularly recommend these two:

          https://youtu.be/mw2z9lV3W1g

          https://youtu.be/PJy8vTu66tE

          • adderaline@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            However, the fact that you don’t care about how business works means you ignore the root of the problem - how business works.

            i can see how you might read that as me not understanding or otherwise being ignorant to how business functions, but its more that from the foundation upwards the way that we conceive of ownership and property is objectionable to me. the specific ways and methods by which capital is used to deprive people of resources and exploit their labor for profit are secondary to the problem of them doing the deprivation of resources and exploitation. i don’t believe there is some sort of mechanistic solution that will give us good or fair capitalism, so all my solutions to the problem involve to the greatest extent possible providing all resources we can to everybody who needs them, and doing away with institutions that prevent us from doing that.

            I’m not going to argue for communism

            then we’re definitely not on the same page lol.

            according to Larry Lessig, i would be an extremist. i can admit that. i am. i am proudly pro-piracy. i would download a car, and i want everybody to have unfettered access to the sum total of human knowledge. i have negative respect for the intellectual property of corporations. i think generally looking to legal frameworks as a tool to prevent the exploitation of artists is kind of just a half step. we should be imagining a world where our ability to create, share, modify, and collaborate is unrestricted. that, to my mind, implies a world that does not have corporations owning our art, music, and technology.

            • upstream@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I mean, it’s all fine on paper.

              But… how… the… fuck… do…. we… get… there???

              Communism is fine on paper. Fuck. Even capitalism is fine on paper.

              However; through empiric data we can learn that humanity is full of shitheads who want to be in power and have control.

              Sadly, as I see it, that is incompatible with any form of utopia.

              I’m from Norway and we used to be fucking close to having an utopia for a short while. Politics were civil, the differences between low income and high income were low, and we actually pooled our oil money into a pension fund so that we would be wealthy when the oil age ended.

              On top of that we were rich on natural resources and had abundant renewable electricity from harnessing our mountains (read: damming up valleys and putting rivers and falls in pipes) to create hydro power.

              Combine that with a socialist government (“the Scandinavian model”) with free education for the masses, affordable housing, free healthcare, some of the best employee protections in the world, great consumer protection with the law basically granting consumers 5 years warranty on everything from cars to phones or TV’s.

              Sadly, since everyone was feeling so wealthy everyone stopped caring. Housing is now anything but affordable. Electricity that we paid for by destroying beautiful nature is no longer a resource for the Norwegian people, but thanks to numerous new export cables to Europe and the fact that production is sold on a fucked-up “stock market” where the most expensive bid to produce electricity for any hour of the day sets the price for everyone, we now have extremely high and volatile electricity prices affecting inflation and reducing competitiveness of Norwegian businesses.

              On top of that politicians keep getting caught with their hands in the cookie-jar at an ever increasing rate, and I think it must have been 20-30 years since we had a prime minister with actual work experience.

              Call me cynical, but good things don’t last if we even get them at all.

              The Romans knew it; the masses simply needs to be entertained by bread and circus and you can do what you want.

              Social media is the best circus so far, and when everyone is busy debating pronouns or whatever flavor of distraction there is this week the political decisions that actually affect us gets made without anyone paying any attention.

              Sincerely though, best of luck with your utopian society. I hope for all of us that we get what you describe.

              I sadly suspect we will keep doing what we are doing until it kills the planet.

              • adderaline@beehaw.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Call me cynical, but good things don’t last if we even get them at all.

                i am gonna call you cynical, at least a little bit. the reality is, we are today far closer to the kind of utopia i’m describing than in any other point in human history. access to knowledge has improved massively in only the span of a couple of decades, and even with how much things suck right now, its still like the best time to be alive. most of human history has been pretty miserable for most people.

                climate change spooks me real bad, and i have felt the way you do. i have never lived in a country where we had the things you’re describing you have lost. it doesn’t matter. it doesn’t even matter if we are going to kill the planet and everything’s gonna die and things will just get worse and worse.

                the reality is, our bodies have less than a hundred years, maybe even significantly less, before we become nothing, and in the long run, humanity and everything we’ve ever created will also become nothing. with that perspective, at least for me, the problem of what to do about the various injustices of the modern world becomes fairly simple. imma do what i can until i’m dead in the ground, then i won’t care if we’re in an anarcho-communist solar punk utopia or a nuclear wasteland.

    • SeriousBug@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yes I agree with you, but I just don’t see how getting rid of copyright laws would fix this. Copyright laws aren’t helping artists enough, so instead of fixing copyright laws we should get rid of them? What do we do instead to protect artists?

      • adderaline@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        i’m a radical, so i’d say don’t use copyright, use copyleft. make everything free. use open source software. let people listen to your music if they want to, and donate to you if they choose. make it so that the best products on every market are freely available to all people to modify and alter as they wish, and make it so the modifications must also be freely available. allow anybody anywhere to produce any medication they have the means to safely synthesize. make our culture free to use and free to participate in. the open source economy is a great model to look at, and its how we’re talking to each other right now. every piece of information can be that way, if we choose it. information scarcity is already a lie, copyright just artificially imposes antiquated notions of scarcity onto a limitless resource. its a gift economy! we freely contribute, and receive support in turn.

        • FlowVoid@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          If your job stopped paying you, and told you to rely on donations from your clients/customers, then I’m pretty sure you’d find a different job.

          • adderaline@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            its not necessarily common, but its weird to make this kind of point while using a platform that works by the exact principles i’m describing lol. open source projects are very frequently built from community support and public funding alone, and the people building them seem to be fine with their jobs.

            • FlowVoid@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              They are fine with their jobs because they have other jobs that pay them.

              Your idea would mean the end of professional musicians. Music performance would be mainly for people with lots of leisure time, something rich people would do as a hobby. Like playing polo.

              • adderaline@beehaw.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                i don’t know what to tell you man. not everybody who develops open source projects for a living does it in their free time. for a lot of projects, particularly the big ones, there is full time development staff.

                but i’m sorry, the thing you’re describing, music performance being out of reach for everybody but the rich? uhh… that is how things are right now. lots of musicians are struggling to afford touring, even the very wealthy ones, and tours often don’t do much more than break even. its gotten worse in recent years, too, as large corporations monopolize venue spaces and independent artists are pushed further and further into the margins. musicians have been talking about how much the live-music industry is fucked for a long time. its almost like the problems you’re imagining would occur under a different system are exactly how it works under this one.