A new law could soon allow AI companies to use copyrighted material without permission.
Good. Copyright and patent laws need to die.
All the money wasted enforcing them and taken from customers could be better spent on other things.
Creators will still create, as they always have. We just won’t have millionaire scumbags such as ‘paul mccartney’ living like kings while children starve.
Lol everything you create will now be stolen by Disney who will own the only organizations that can reach an audience.
Thanks for giving them free money forever just so you can spite people with actual talent.
How is disney going to make its money without copyright and patent laws?
How will their movies sell if it’s legal for anyone to copy and redistribute them?
How will they make as much money off of merchandise if they have to legally compete with people who don’t hold copyrights to their IP?
The only “Lol” here is how proud you people are for being useful idiots. This is why things are the way they are.
Because they have the money to advertise all of the better financed projects they would be allowed to steal.
Wanting copywright to be gone means you intend to steal from others, you aren’t robin hood lol
Because they have the money to advertise all of the better financed projects they would be allowed to steal.
How are they going to make money off of these projects if people can legally copy and redistribute them for free?
You’re completely wrong about your assumption, but advertising should be illegal too.
Wanting copywright to be gone means you intend to steal from others
“Wahhhh, he stole my idea!”
You mean copy, not steal. When something is stolen from you, you no longer have it.
This is a terrible take. Sure. There are issues with the system, but these laws protect smaller musicians and inventors from having their ideas stolen and profited upon by larger players.
Without patent laws, there’s no reason to ever “buyout” a design from an inventor, or for smaller songwriters to ever get paid again. A large company or musician could essentially steal your work and make money off of it, and you would get nothing for all of the time and effort that you put into it.
Most musicians and inventors never make any significant amounts money off of their music or inventions.
There is an extremely small pool of creators who make an egregious amount of money off of their creations.
A large company or musician could essentially steal your work and make money off of it
They would make less money overall if they did not have copyright and patent laws to help them. It’s sad watching you people go to bat for laws that exist solely to make rich people richer, but it’s why you’re average.
I agree that most creators don’t become wealthy, and yes, there’s plenty of abuse and inequality in how IP laws are applied. But removing those laws wouldn’t solve that - it would just give even more power to the entities with the most money, reach, and legal muscle.
Without IP protections, smaller inventors and musicians wouldn’t even have the option to negotiate or earn anything off their work. A major label or corporation could just take it, polish it, and release it as their own without any consequences.
So while the system isn’t perfect, saying it “only exists to make the rich richer” misses the point. The alternative isn’t more equity, it’s no recourse at all for the little guy.
Lol says the guy that’s probably going to pirate GTA 6.
And how do you propose people you claim will continue to create be compensated for their work when one of those much bigger corporations you seem to hate simply steal their work and profit off of it?
Things like rent won’t be so expensive because landlords will have less of an excuse to charge customers more money. So, in essence you’re not even arguing for compensating creators for their work; you’re arguing for compensating their feudal lords.
when one of those much bigger corporations you seem to hate simply steal their work and profit off of it?
Corporations will also make less money because there are no copyright and patent laws. Your cognitive dissonance is on full display here.
This is how we put more money in the hands of the working class. It’'s sad watching you fight tooth and nail against it just as you’ve been conditioned to do.
You’re moving the goal posts and making assumptions.
Please address my question how do you propose any intellectual entity be compensated to their creator without any kind of theft protection?
Also leave you naive childish and idiotic anti-whatever proselytizing for you racist uncle over thanksgiving dinner.
I’m not moving any goalposts nor am I making any assumptions. You are upset because rather than learn from your cognitive dissonance, you attack the person who calls it out.
Also leave you naive childish and idiotic anti-whatever proselytizing for you racist uncle over thanksgiving dinner.
Hey, you’re the one who’s arguing to exacerbate the disparity in wealth. Not me.
Ok. Fine. I’ll bite.
My original comment was about protecting intellectual property from theft, you responded with some bullshit about landlords charging too much rent which has nothing to do with intellectual theft. That is a textbook definition of moving the goal post.
Then you made assumptions about what I may or may not believe or think.
And now in this most recent comment you are asserting something that I did not say. I’m not arguing for or against the disparity in wealth.
Are you going to address my question? How do you propose that people who create intellectual property be compensated for their property? How do you propose you protect these people from intellectual theft? Please refrain from responding with anything other than the answer to this question I want you to propose a mechanism that will protect people from intellectual theft.
ONCE AGAIN THIS IS ABOUT INTELLECTUAL THEFT.
Also stop using the term cognitive dissonance you clearly have no clue what it means.
Can the rest of us please use copyrighted material without permission?
God I hope so.
Yes.
You already likely do. Every book you read and learned from is copyrighted material. Every video you watch on YouTube and learned from is copyrighted material.
The “without permission” is not correct. You’ve got permission to watch/listen/learn from it by them releasing it and you paying any applicable subscription etc costs. AI does the same.
By “use” I actually meant “reproduce portions of” and “make derivative works of”
AI doesn’t do that though.
For sure, AI can reproduce wholesale verbatim copies of text from miscellaneous sources. It can also create images that are so close to random deviantartists’ images that it’s undeniably plagiaristic. I expect this bug will be worked out eventually, but it is currently quite capable of doing this. In other words, you could say the weights contain a lossy encoding of many artists’ works, and those works can (lossily) be eked out of the model with some coercion.
Which AI models? Can you share some examples please?
Here’s a poignant example IMO:
As long as you use AI to generate it
The AI just gives you a 1:1 copy of it’s training data, which is the material. Viola.
Paul McCartney and Dua Lipa should release a song together.
Don’t Let Me Down, Just Don’t Start Now
Don’t worry, if they don’t you can just use ai to make them.
Why? Did you learn nothing from her duet with Elton The John?
Cold Heart? I like that song.
Just a shame Elton was in it.
What has Elton John done?
They are just illegally selling us off as slaves. That is what is happening. All our fault for not having strong citizen watchdogs, clamping down on this behavior.
All our fault for not having strong citizen watchdogs
We’re all too busy playing fortnite and watching marvel movies.
Thought experiment: What if AI companies were allowed to use copyrighted material for free as long as they release their models to the public? Want to keep your model private? Pay up. Similar to the GPL.
It still devalues the work of individual creators.
It devalues universal share value yea.
As if the music industry wasn’t exploiting artists already. I use Chatgpt to learn about chord progressions. Sue me
The copyright industry would never accept that. Where’s the money for them?
Fun fact: Copyright is also the basis on which you enforce copyleft provisions such as the those in GPL. In a world without copyright, there are no software licenses yet alone copyleft.
I know it’s very challenging for “this community” (FOSS users & developers let’s say) because a significant number of them also support shadow libraries such as Sci-Hub and Library Genesis and Anna’s Archive so how do we reconcile “copyleft (therefore copyright) good” with “copyright bad”?
I don’t have a clear answer yet but maybe the difference is as simple as violating copyright for personal purposes vs business purposes? Anyway…
The GPL uses copyright because it’s the legal mechanism available to enforce the principles that the GPL wants to enforce. It’s entirely consistent to believe that copyright shouldn’t exist while also believing that a law should exist to allow/enforce the principles of the GPL.
That’s fair! Though I find it (new laws that enforce the principles of copyleft) pretty unlikely so I’d much prefer a world with copyright + copyleft (GPL) than a world without either where mega corporations can exploit the commons without being obliged to share back.
It’s literally called copyright because it’s about the rights to copy something. The new law would still be a form of copyright.
Without copyright there would be no need for copyleft. Its right there in the name.
Without copyright there would be no need for copyleft. Its right there in the name.
It sounds plausible but it’s wrong. Without copyright, you are allowed to copy, use, and distribute all digital works regardless but being legally allowed doesn’t mean (a) that you are able to (e.g. copying might be ~impossible due to DRM and other security measures) and (b) that you are entitled to the source code of such work so someone can take your FOSS code, put it in their proprietary software, and then distribute only the binaries.
Copyleft licenses, through copyright, enforce sharing.
The whole point for many, me included, is for everyone to be able to use any works in any way we want. Including putting “open source” code into “proprietary” binaries. Because there are no proprietary binaries without IP protections - everyone can just decompile the code and reuse it.
I don’t think it’s accurate to say that everyone can just decompile the code and reuse it. Decompiling and reverse engineering a binary is incredibly hard. Even if you do that there are some aspects of the original code which get optimised out in the compiler and can’t be reproduced from just the binary.
As someone who has extensive experience with decompiling, I can say that working with binaries is usually a lot easier than with a source code.
“Yeah, well, you know, that’s just, like, your opinion, man.”
How is that the case? I’ve got pretty much zero experience with decompiling software, but I can’t say I’ve ever heard anyone who does say that before. I genuinely can’t imagine that it’s easier to work with say, decompiling a game to make changes to it rather than just having the source available for it.
I suppose unless the context is just regarding running software then of course it’s easier to just run a binary that’s already a binary - but then I’m not sure I see where decompiling comes into relevance.
Ahh. Paul McCartney. Looks like Lemmy has finally found a billionaire it likes.
I’m sure it is The Beatles’ activism for social change that won people over. Who could forget their great protest song “The Taxman”, bravely taking a stand against the 95% tax rate. Truly, the 60ies were a time of liberation.
“truly the 60’s were a time of liberation.”
I love the people that compare one aspect of history and forget the rest, lol. The past sucked and our current future sucks.
John Lennon was a piece of shit.
“Lemmy has found a billionaire it likes.” - reads one post makes a determination because of one post.
God I fucking hate Lemmy. It is the same nonsense like this Lemmy gives reddit crap about
One post doesnt make a platform like a billionaire. Also, if a Billionaire can speak about against something that protects artists then all the power to them. Slapping the word billionaire on something doesn’t make everything a billionaire does bad.
I hate billionaires as much as the next Lemmy user but it is sentiments like this that are nonsense.
John Lennon was a piece of shit.
Huh?
John Lennon admitted to hitting an ex girlfriend. He came out, apologised for it, and said he was trying to better himself but he had a whole load of problems.
Bizarrely, his ex later came out and said John didn’t beat her and that she didn’t know what he was talking about.
Ringo has also admitted to hitting a girlfriend before.
There are plenty of situations where you can hit someone and then feel bad and apologize for that, which in my opinion do not make you a piece of shit.
Say, I have BAD, ASD, probably ADHD (with the previous two hard to tell, a lot of intersections really and comorbidity … long story). I do get emotional, sometimes with destructive results. Haven’t hit anyone in many years, but can easily imagine doing that.
I never said he was a piece of shit.
I never said you did.
Weird reply, in that case.
Normal people pirate: one hundred bazillion dollars fine for download The Hangover.
One hundred bazillion dollars company pirate: special law to say it okay because poor company no can exist without pirate 😞
I’d rather people not profiting off copyrighted work be permitted than those who profit off it
I read this as pro-piracy and anti-AI, generally speaking, since the former is for personal use (art should be free to share and enjoy) while the latter is for commercial use (you should not be allowed to freely profit off the work of artists).
I intended it that way
AI for me but not for thee
Doesn’t work for any ai because non-commercial ai companies get sold and become for profit with a trained model
I’m plenty open to questioning every part of copyright (has the idea ever actually been proven to be worth the enormous costs? It’s like an infinity-percent tariff on anything information related.) but the same copyright should apply to everbody. It sounds like this proposal gives a specific pass to corporations developing AI - anything these corporations can access should be accessible to the general public as well. If you can use a song to train an AI for free, a human artist should also be allowed to use it directly and turn it into a new work.
Most of us make fun of the stupid everyday masses for supporting laws that only benefit people who are vastly richer than they’ll ever be. But I’m almost guaranteed to get douchevoted for pointing out that the vast majority of musicians never get famous, never get recording contracts, and make their living from day to day playing little gigs wherever they can find them. They don’t materially suffer if AI includes patterns from their creations in its output. But we’re supposed to feel camaraderie with the likes of Paul McCartney and Elton John as if they’re fighting for the little guy. McCartney’s a billionaire and Elton’s more than halfway there - they both own recording companies ffs. If you’re going to do simple meme-brained thinking and put black or white hats on people, at least get the hats right.
Taylor swift is another one… She really fought them record labels lol
Good for her but she has no class solidarity with peasants anymore than the rest of owner class.
- There’s a practical concern: how do you prevent ai without preventing people.
- What if you want to allow search, and how is that different than ai, legally or in practice?
- Does this put Reddit in a new light? Free content to users but charging for the api to do bulk download such as for ai?
Search is very different to create something.
How funny this is gonna get when AI copyrights Nintendo stuff. Ah man I got my popcorn ready.
They’re not gonna do anything about it for the same reason any other litigious company hasn’t done anything thus far. They’re looking to benefit from AI by cutting costs. If the tech wasn’t beneficiary to these big tech conglomerates they would’ve already sued their asses to oblivion, but since they do care they’ll let AI train on their copyrighted material.
But you, casual BitTorrent, eDonkey (I like good old things) and such user, can’t.
It’s literally a law allowing people doing some business violate a right of others, or, looking at that from another side, making only people not working for some companies subject to a law …
What I mean - at some point in my stupid life I thought only individuals should ever be subjects of law. Where now the sides are the government and some individual, a representative (or a chain of people making decisions) of the government should be a side, not its entirety.
For everything happening a specific person, easy to determine, should be legally responsible. Or a group of people (say, a chain from top to this specific one in a hierarchy).
Because otherwise this happens, the differentiation between a person and a business and so on allows other differentiation kinds, and also a person having fewer rights than a business or some other organization. And it will always drift in that direction, because a group is stronger than an individual.
And in this specific case somebody would be able to sue the prime minister.
OK, it’s an utopia, similar to anarcho-capitalism, just in a different dimension, in that of responsibility.
You’re talking about illegally acquiring content, which isn’t the same as training AI off legally acquired/viewed content.
I’m not talking about legally\illegally, I’m talking about rightfully\unrightfully , the difference is in under whose control the category line is.
So you’re talking morally? Sorry but that’s not even worth discussing here.
Who’s deciding?
Who’s deciding what?
Greed have no age.
I wonder how they decided which artist to include in the thumbnail image.
