Technology

34987 readers

236 users here now

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.

Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.

Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

MinutePhrase@lemmy.ml

The enforcement of copyright law is really simple. (aus.social)

submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by ajsadauskas@aus.social to c/technology@lemmy.ml

103 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The enforcement of copyright law is really simple.

If you were a kid who used Napster in the early 2000s to download the latest album by The Offspring or Destiny's Child, because you couldn't afford the CD, then you need to go to court! And potentially face criminal sanctions or punitive damages to the RIAA for each song you download, because you're an evil pirate! You wouldn't steal a car! Creators must be paid!

If you created educational videos on YouTube in the 2010s, and featured a video or audio clip, then even if it's fair use, and even if it's used to make a legitimate point, you're getting demonetised. That's assuming your videos don't disappear or get shadow banned or your account isn't shut entirely. Oh, and good luck finding your way through YouTube's convoluted DMCA process! All creators are equal in deserving pay, but some are more equal than others!

And if you're a corporation with a market capitalisation of US$1.5 trillion (Google/Alphabet) or US$2.3 billion (Microsoft), then you can freely use everyone's intellectual property to train your generative AI bots. Suddenly creators don't deserve to be paid a cent.

Apparently, an individual downloading a single file is like stealing a car. But a trillion-dollar corporation stealing every car is just good business.

@music@fedibb.ml @technology #technology #tech #economics #copyright #ArtificialIntelligence #capitalism #IntellectualProperty @music@lemmy.ml #law #legal #economics

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] ajsadauskas@aus.social 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

@emoryr @technology @music@fedibb.ml @music@lemmy.ml It's more of a cynical tongue-in-cheek take. For the record, I totally agree that breaching copyright is not the same as stealing a car.

"Creators must be paid" is a recurring argument for maintaining copyrights as a system.

But how much it matters seems to vary widely, depending on whether it's a 16-year-old kid using Napster, or a multi-trillion-dollar multinational that benefits from creators not being paid for their work.

[–] emoryr@techpolicy.social 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

@ajsadauskas @technology @music@fedibb.ml @music@lemmy.ml Oh for sure. I just worry that the nearly-universal backlash against generative AI from academia/lefty/artists/policy wonky people (my people!) grounded in well-intended anti-corporate/consumer protection sentiment is carrying water for the same old copyright maximalist corporations. IMO, down that way is costly litigation, dragging artists in to prove their own workflows, a further erosion of fair use and the final death blow of de minimis...