[flagged]
EFF to Courts: Don't Rewrite Copyright over AI Hype
91–100 of 207 posts
Re: EFF to Courts: Don't Rewrite Copyright over AI Hype
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not an artist and might be entirely wrong, but my understanding is that for 99% of artists, over 99% of their revenue is from concerts tickets, merch and other physical products, rather than digital/broadcast plays, so changing this to zero wouldn't really affect them, but would act to reduce the power of the labels and other intermediaries over them.
Copyright covers a lot more than the long tail of indie music bands who stream a few thousand plays on Spotify. This thread has a lot of arguments based entirely on beliefs about small bands and streaming services. Music is only a small part of copyright law.
I have the same understanding regarding YouTubers and writers.
There’s so much competition nowadays, almost no indie can achieve nearly enough sales for a living wage. And ironically, the best way to get more attention is to make your product free, hence more and more artists doing free + paid merch.
Re: EFF to Courts: Don't Rewrite Copyright over AI Hype
#93Independend of AI I am fully supporting the idea to abolish copyright in general, full stop. Allowing cheap duplication and tweaking is what leads to fast innovation and culture changes. Explicit (costly) patents can remain in place to secure industrial-grade research processes, but the general everyday stuff, incluing music and literature and code and so on is something to strip default rights away to allow faster p…
Copyleft is built on copyright, do you think removing copyright protections is going to get people to release their source code?? I don't think so. Not unless you want to try and legislate some general copyleft law, but that's probably a nonstarter.
Re: EFF to Courts: Don't Rewrite Copyright over AI Hype
#94legit
Re: EFF to Courts: Don't Rewrite Copyright over AI Hype
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not an artist and might be entirely wrong, but my understanding is that for 99% of artists, over 99% of their revenue is from concerts tickets, merch and other physical products, rather than digital/broadcast plays, so changing this to zero wouldn't really affect them, but would act to reduce the power of the labels and other intermediaries over them.
I suspect that for 99% of artists, over 99% of their income is from a day job, often minimum wage If you're at the point where you're making money from merch and concert tickets you're probably ahead of 99% of artists I suppose we usually just call them "aspiring artists" then, but still
No, condescending people call them "aspiring". Anyone who knows and likes art calls them artists.
Re: EFF to Courts: Don't Rewrite Copyright over AI Hype
#96Independend of AI I am fully supporting the idea to abolish copyright in general, full stop. Allowing cheap duplication and tweaking is what leads to fast innovation and culture changes. Explicit (costly) patents can remain in place to secure industrial-grade research processes, but the general everyday stuff, incluing music and literature and code and so on is something to strip default rights away to allow faster p…
Incidentally, the Statute of Anne was pushed by a printing guild after they lost their monopoly on printing. It was so unpopular[1] for them to get the monopoly back that they had to pivot and come up with some other way. So they figured they could do it in the name of writers. That worked!
1. John Locke, for example, opposed the monopoly.
Re: EFF to Courts: Don't Rewrite Copyright over AI Hype
#97Copyright is too long (thank you Disney and Pelosi) and I'm all for shortening it. Also I do agree that market dilution is not really defensible. The main reason why models should have been shut down is the sketchy way in which the models were trained.
Re: EFF to Courts: Don't Rewrite Copyright over AI Hype
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
artists sell live experiences and original merchandise to actually make money these days. only a rare subset of megastars are living off royalties to begin with, and I am totally fine if some tailor swift has less millions to begin with. people support/pay real artists if they want more of it, else there is no way I see a right to get paid a wage for just being an artist in itself. if youre not original enough so you…
It’s not Taylor Swift who is hurt by this, it’s the solo creatives who cannot afford other mechanisms (e.g. trademark enforcement) to protect their work.
Trademark != copyright: trademark is attributing indies whenever their work appears (which is very doable), copyright is preventing others from seeing or reshowing their work (even with attribution). Copyright is about protecting their sales, which are practically nonexistent, hence (because it has big downsides) why it should be abolished.
Re: EFF to Courts: Don't Rewrite Copyright over AI Hype
#99Independend of AI I am fully supporting the idea to abolish copyright in general, full stop. Allowing cheap duplication and tweaking is what leads to fast innovation and culture changes. Explicit (costly) patents can remain in place to secure industrial-grade research processes, but the general everyday stuff, incluing music and literature and code and so on is something to strip default rights away to allow faster p…
Author: I spent six months writing this story, I hope I can make some money selling it, it would be my dream to be able to keep doing this full time. You: I will steal this, consume it, reprint it as I see fit and you will earn nothing. Yeah... I don't think your opinions are worth much.
many people commenting have never tried to earn a living from independently created works of authorship. The NAPSTER-fans say "more for me, what is your problem". Other economies (China) do not have commerce law that protects original works of authorship, but the Western tradition has enabled this.
Blinded by corporate abuse, calls for removal of copyright law are often naive or ill-willed IMHO
Re: EFF to Courts: Don't Rewrite Copyright over AI Hype
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
Author: I spent six months writing this story, I hope I can make some money selling it, it would be my dream to be able to keep doing this full time. You: I will steal this, consume it, reprint it as I see fit and you will earn nothing. Yeah... I don't think your opinions are worth much.
What % of new authors today make full-time salary on writing? And what % of those do by selling, vs giving away their work for free (to get non-negligible attention) then getting their real money through donations, merch, etc.?
What does it matter?
I don't think anyone has the right to take work I create, for free.
In the same way I have no right to walk into your house and use it for free.
In the same way you cannot expect me to turn up and work at your business for free.
I don't care what half delusional rubbish you come up with to justify your theft.
It's theft, you want to steal something you put zero effort into creating and use it as you see fit. No fuck you. If I want to give it away for free, that's my prerogative not your expectation, if I can monetise via merch or other means, that's my prerogative not your right.