860
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world 24 points 9 months ago

copyright laws need to be abolished

[-] ForgotAboutDre@lemmy.world 29 points 9 months ago

That would make it harder for creative people to produce things and make money from it. Abolishing copyright isn't the answer. We still need a system like that.

A shorter period of copyright, would encourage more new content. As creative industries could no longer rely on old outdated work.

[-] federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago

That would make it harder for creative people to produce things and make money from it

no, it would make it easier.

it would be harder to stop people from making money on creative works.

[-] ForgotAboutDre@lemmy.world 27 points 9 months ago

You write a book, people start buying that book. Someone copies that book and sells it for 10 pence on Amazon. You get nothing from each sale.

You write a song and people want to listen to it. Spotify serves them that song, you get nothing because you have no right to own your copy.

[-] ricdeh@lemmy.world 13 points 9 months ago

That's how free/libre and open-source software has worked since forever. And it works just fine. There is no need for an exclusive right to commercialise a product in order for it to be produced. You are basically parroting a decades old lie from Hollywood.

[-] trashgirlfriend@lemmy.world 14 points 9 months ago

Yeah, you don't need exclusive rights for it to be produced. But artists, especially smaller artists, need that right to do silly things like paying for food and rent.

[-] federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago

no, they don't

[-] federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago

you can still sell your book

you can still sell your song.

but your song can be a remix. your book can be a retelling of a popular story.

you can still make money. you just can't stop other people from making money. that is all copyright does, and it is wrong. it destroys culture.

[-] Miaou@jlai.lu 14 points 9 months ago

Yeah, just make your own Spotify, how difficult is that?

[-] skulblaka@startrek.website 8 points 9 months ago

Relatively simple actually, without copyright. Download Spotify, rename app to Spudify, re-upload to app store. Done, easy peasy. Hardest part about it would be decompiling the existing app, which is definitely possible and may not even be necessary.

The real truth is, however, that in this hypothetical world there would be no Spotify to copy and there would be much, much less music available to stream on Spudify.

[-] Dkarma@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

Yeah cuz musicians and artists only ever do it for the money...no other reason ever, nope.

[-] EldritchFeminity 6 points 9 months ago

If they can't afford to do it, then you're relegating creativity to only those wealthy enough to be able to afford to do it.

The vast majority of art throughout human history was paid for by somebody, or sold by the artist. Van Gogh dies a poor man because people didn't want to buy his paintings when he was alive. The Sistine Chapel was commissioned by a Pope. Just because you think your have an intrinsic right to the work of somebody else doesn't mean you do.

[-] Dkarma@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

Your first sentence is simply not true.

[-] EldritchFeminity 5 points 9 months ago

It absolutely is true. If people can't afford the time to create, what you'll see is a hyper-accelerated version of the fine art world, with AI art for the masses, and human-made art for the wealthy either by commission or by those wealthy enough to spend the time learning to create their own, never to be seen by anyone else. And since AI work is a derivative of the work in its data set, it will degrade in quality over time as those data sets become filled with AI generated work. We're already seeing this with stuff like ChatGPT.

It's only been in the past 50-100 years that your average person has been able to buy art. Before then, art was relegated to the wealthy. Artists had patrons, people with more money than sense who were willing to pay the artist enough that they could spend their time making art instead of working, or they made commissioned pieces for the wealthy: private art for their homes, public statues and pieces for temples venerating the person who had it commissioned, stuff like that.

[-] federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

without copyright standing in your way, it is a cinch.

[-] gapbetweenus@feddit.de 15 points 9 months ago

That would be an update, not sure it would be a good thing. As an artist I want to be able to tell where my work is used and where not. Would suck to find something from me used in fascist propaganda or something.

[-] federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago

As an artist I want to be able to tell where my work is used and where not.

that would be nice. a government-enforced monopoly isnt an ethical vehicle to achieve your goal.

[-] gapbetweenus@feddit.de 14 points 9 months ago

I'm open for other ideas, until then I take laws. I don't see anything wrong with people making rules for interactions.

[-] federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

rules are ok. laws are unjust.

[-] gapbetweenus@feddit.de 20 points 9 months ago

Rules that are not enforced don't make any sense whatsoever.

[-] federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago
[-] gapbetweenus@feddit.de 17 points 9 months ago

You are master debater sir, difficult to disagree with such eloquent and well thought out argumentation.

[-] federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

I presented exactly as much support for my position as you for yours

[-] gapbetweenus@feddit.de 8 points 9 months ago

I thought It was rather self-explanatory, but sure you need me to explain why rules make only sense if they are enforced?

[-] federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

they don't, so any explanation is erroneous.

[-] gapbetweenus@feddit.de 8 points 9 months ago

Just curious, why do you communicate with other if you are not interested in their opinion?

[-] federatingIsTooHard@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

I said what I wanted to say. I didn't ask for your opinion.

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Truly a "Which Way White Man" moment.

I'm old enough to remember people swearing left, right, and center that copyright and IP law being aggressively enforced against social media content has helped corner the market and destroy careers. I'm also well aware of how often images from DeviantArt and other public art venues have been scalped and misappropriated even outside the scope of modern generative AI. And how production houses have outsourced talent to digital sweatshops in the Pacific Rim, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Latin America, where you can pay pennies for professional reprints and adaptations.

It seems like the problem is bigger than just "Does AI art exist?" and "Can copyright laws be changed?" because the real root of the problem is the exploitation of artists generally speaking. When exploitation generates an enormous profit motive, what are artists to do?

[-] randomsnark@lemmy.ml 1 points 9 months ago

What is a "which way white man" moment?

this post was submitted on 21 Jan 2024
860 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

59166 readers
1795 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS