86
Opinion: The Copyright Office is making a mistake on AI-generated art
(arstechnica.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 Sep 2023
86 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
37731 readers
299 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
It's not actually called "theft" or "stealing", it's called "infringement" or "violation". Infringement is to intellectual property as trespassing is to real estate. The owners are still able to use their property, but their rights to it have nevertheless been violated.
Also, corporations cannot create intellectual property. They can only offer to buy it from the natural persons who created it. Without IP protection, creators would lose the only protections they have against corporations and other entrenched interests.
Imagine seeing all your family photos plastered on a McDonald's billboard, or in political ad for a candidate you despise. Imagine being told, "Sorry, you can't stop them from using your photos however they want". That's a world without IP protection.
right, but how often does that actually work out in people's favor, and how often does that benefit corporate interests with massive influence? how many musicians don't have the right to their own work because record companies dominate the music industry? how many artists working for large corporations are denied residuals because a condition of their work is that everything they produce is owned by their employer? writers? animators?
that's not even considering the ways in which corporations patent technologies that are the result of publicly funded research efforts. a great deal of pharmaceuticals would not be possible without massive public research grants, but the companies privatize the results of that research using the framework of intellectual property.
in theory, you're right, it does protect you against corporations using your shit without permission, but in practice it just stops you from using your shit without their permission. there are far better ways of ensuring corporations cannot exploit you than to make your creativity and invention a commodity to be bought and sold.
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.
Same for artists, writers, programmers, photographers, or anyone else whose work is protected by copyright.
I fully agree things are not great right now, but that's not copyright laws fault. I think you need other laws and regulations to fix things, like small creators should be able to sue large companies with minimal cost if they infringeme on their copyright. And there should be some sort of provisions so companies can't trap people in horrible contracts. I'd also love to see fair use exceptions broadened in cases where the copyrighted material is just not available anymore, like old games or movies that are not sold anymore. Shorten the length of copyright too. But getting rid of it completely would not work.
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.
Okay so without copyright law, what's the recourse for the creator? What is your suggestion, for example?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
If a musician doesn't have the right to their own work, it's because someone offered to pay them for the rights and they accepted.
Is that in their favor? I think so, considering the alternative is to not get paid and not have rights to their work.
And not to go too far off topic, but publicly funded research is generally not aimed at drug development, it is aimed at discovering the basic science behind how the body works (human body or otherwise).
If you want a clinical trial that proves a particular drug can actually help patients, you will need to find a company to pay for it. The government almost never pays for clinical trials (I think the COVID vaccine might have been an exception). Clinical trials are far more expensive than basic science, and patents are the carrot to get the private sector to pay for them.
i mean, if you aren't at least peripherally aware of the ways in which people can be coerced into accepting contracts i don't know what to tell you. record companies are pretty notorious for exploiting musicians, and musicians have been complaining about it for many decades. same thing with writers, and vfx artists, and game designers, and on and on and on.
i'm aware of how it works, but it's now how it has to work. i would prefer they did do all that publicly, and there is nothing that prevents them from doing so. the cost in human lives that comes with entrusting life-saving medications to profit-motivated executives is immense, especially for drugs that treat illnesses that are endemic to poorer nations. in any case, US tax dollars funded every new pharmaceutical in the last decade, and i don't really care who foots the bill for what part of drug development when exactly zero new drugs would exist without public scientific progress serving as the foundation for these new technologies.