this post was submitted on 15 May 2023
50 points (94.6% liked)

Technology

34971 readers
193 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
 

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

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] SocialistStan@kolektiva.social 6 points 2 years ago (7 children)

@ajsadauskas @technology @music@fedibb.ml @music@lemmy.ml I don't believe in copyright law anymore than I do in landlords. Information is free.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] majcher@dice.camp 5 points 2 years ago

@ajsadauskas @technology @music@fedibb.ml @music@lemmy.ml If corporations couldn't get away with doing things that would get an individual fined or arrested, how would they maintain their competitive edge? Profits above everything, baby!

[–] Arpie4Math@mathstodon.xyz 5 points 2 years ago

@ajsadauskas @technology @music@fedibb.ml @music@lemmy.ml

#Copyright does not protect the concept and themes of artistic presentation. So training autocomplete tools like #ChatGPT or generative art tools along the lines of #StabilityAI on huge amounts of copyrighted material available on the web doesn't seem to trespass on the rights actually created by copyright law. That is, neither the trained model parameters nor the output qualifies as a infringing copy.

The fact that big corporations have heated the rhetoric with even small-scale copyright infringement being characterized as if it were an existential threat rather than free marketing perhaps misleads people to think copyright grants the owner total control of the future of their creations. But law is about statutes and precedents, not feelings, which is why big corporations aren't likely to train their models on billions of copyrighted works if there was a credible risk of paying statutory damages on a per-work basis.

If there is a moral right to the "something" that has been gifted to these models by their training, it has not been well described, let alone recognized in law as property of the creators. How is this "something" which an AI model steals supposed to be distinguished from the piecewise appreciation for the art as summed over all human viewers?

So perhaps the real problem is the moral outrage created by the corporations who for decades equate copyright infringement with being ambushed by a gang of seagoing rapists, kidnappers, killers, and robbers (pirates). Towards that end, Germany is discussing adding copyright infringement as a form of "digital violence" making the analogy more exact.

https://www.techdirt.com/2023/05/05/germany-wants-to-include-copyright-infringement-under-its-planned-digital-violence-law/

[–] cypherpunks@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 years ago

yeah, as others have already said, this isn't how copyright law works: it's how law in general works.

[–] tychosoft@fosstodon.org 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

@ajsadauskas @technology @music@fedibb.ml @music@lemmy.ml and that's how America works; The bigger you are, the smaller your crimes.

[–] nickapos@twit.social 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

@ajsadauskas @technology @music@fedibb.ml @music@lemmy.ml i have the feeling that in using the platforms offered by these companies you have given them permission to use your work.

[–] Aviva_Gary@noc.social 2 points 2 years ago

@ajsadauskas @technology @music@fedibb.ml @music@lemmy.ml Big crime little crime paradox... also see corporations are people too 😉

[–] nanook@friendica.eskimo.com 2 points 2 years ago

This is what happens under fascism.

[–] krisnelson@legal.social 2 points 2 years ago

@ajsadauskas @technology @music yeah, sounds about right—see also the comparisons of e.g. wage theft vs shoplifting for what strikes me as a somewhat similar example of this kind of disparity

[–] CWilbur@sfba.social 2 points 2 years ago
[–] JohnSullivan@mastodonapp.uk 2 points 2 years ago

@ajsadauskas @technology @music@fedibb.ml @music@lemmy.ml Sometimes I don’t have to wonder why giving up on pursuing any of my creative talents seems like the depressingly reasonable thing to do.

[–] Firesphere@cloudisland.nz 1 points 2 years ago

@ajsadauskas @technology @music@fedibb.ml @music@lemmy.ml I don't think you understand the problem.
You see, companies have long struggled due to piracy.
They have to come up with solutions to piracy, and implement them. That is hard work and doesn't do a thing against piracy, and heck it even didn't lower their revenue, because it was proven that those that pirate stuff, also buy stuff.
Therefore, it only makes sense that if you have a lot of money, you don't have to pay...

Wait, I lost my train of thought.

[–] amiserabilist@med-mastodon.com 1 points 2 years ago

@ajsadauskas @technology @music@lemmy.ml @music@fedibb.ml

one death is a tragedy a million is a statistic

[–] emoryr@techpolicy.social 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

@ajsadauskas @technology @music@fedibb.ml @music@lemmy.ml Except (correct me if I'm wrong here) this sounds like a call for expanding copyright -- but it's *still* not "stealing a car." It never was stealing a car, and making the copyright maximalist argument feels as wrong now as then. Training a neural net isn't stealing (yet), corps like MSFT /Alphabet will be able to weather any changes to IP law, but imo this rhetoric is going to hurt the legions of small artists discovering and working with this new medium.

[–] 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...

[–] opendna@mastodon.sdf.org 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

@ajsadauskas @technology @music@fedibb.ml @music@lemmy.ml "Kill one man, and you are a murderer. Kill millions of men, and you are a conqueror." Jean Rostand

[–] JorgeStolfi@mas.to 4 points 2 years ago

@opendna @ajsadauskas @technology @music@fedibb.ml @music@lemmy.ml

And if you kill only a million, but they are your own subjects, you are only a Republican President of the US facing a major epidemic. 😜

[–] kaliranya@vtuber.house 1 points 2 years ago

@ajsadauskas @technology @music@fedibb.ml @music@lemmy.ml A post I saw over the weekend proposed a browser extension that replaces mentions of "AI" with "the Torment Nexus". An alternative find-replace could be "AI" to "copyright laundering"!

[–] canayjun@mstdn.social 1 points 2 years ago

@ajsadauskas I never used Napster. I found out Google’s own YouTube was giving me free music. While searching for why my hard drive space was being used up so quickly ( remember pre-terabyte drives… pre-Gb?) In my Windows system cache folders were massive files. Always after I had listened to YouTube. Google was basically storing every song I listened to on my own hard drive. Google was just lazy. Even MySpace had a js routine called cache-buster. Thanks Google.

[–] BlinkerFluid@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I argue that copyright law is as pointless as it is to circumvent legally.

For instance, Google any song.

Did a YouTube video show up? The copyright law is fucking useless.

[–] downdaemon@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

it can be selectively enforced to instill fear in the population. my sister's long term bf (she already had 2 young kids) is from Iran and is really against me bring over pirated movies because he's trying to get citizenship. Like they have to watch the new mario movie at my place lol

[–] afastaudir8@mastodon.online 1 points 2 years ago

@ajsadauskas @technology @music@fedibb.ml @music@lemmy.ml Pirating things from big corporations has never been wrong. Should honestly be encouraged if it wasn't for the law...

load more comments
view more: next ›