TwilightVulpine @ TwilightVulpine @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

897

Joined

2 yr. ago

Mythical? Way to spell out that you don't keep up with one single artist or the struggles they face.

Like I said before, I agree that the Copyright system is severely flawed and it needs a complete overhaul. Because the law that is intended to protect and support creators should do just that instead of being a tool for corporate control and profits. Even creators of derivative works ought to have better protections than they have now. It should enable them to maintain a livelihood and continue creating, which benefits our whole culture by the introduction of new ideas and aesthetics.

It shouldn't, though, enable their replacement.

But hey, you couldn't make any more clearer that you don't give a single fuck about any of that. What, do you just hate Copyright because you want free shit?

That is just avoiding the issues with some tenuously related outrage. AI will not cause or prevent a 24th Fast and Furious movie from being made, it's an established brand with plenty of investor backing. If AIs require a massive library of owned IP to train, Universal can use it. If it doesn't, they still can use it. If the suggestion here is that some upcoming AI creator is going to take down Fast and Furious and soulless corporate media... I don't see any reason whatsoever why this might happen.

But many small independent artists with a couple thousand followers or upcoming artists improving their skills working for media companies will have their opportunities cut short if AI is used as a substitute for their work. It's not Mickey that is going to suffer, it's small creators who have true passion.

But ignoring that because "Copyright Bad"? That ain't it chief. The world is not quite so simple.

Because humans have more rights than tools. You are free to look at copyrighted text and pictures, memorize them and describe them to others. It doesn't mean you can use a camera to take and share pictures of it.

Acting like every right that AIs have must be identical to humans', and if not that means the erosion of human rights, is a fundamentally flawed argument.

It's not like all this data was randomly dumped at the AIs. For data sets to serve as good training materials they need contextual information so that the AI can discern patterns and replicate them when prompted.

We see this when you can literally prompt AIs with whose style you want it to emulate. Meaning that the data it was fed had such information.

Midjourney is facing extra backlash from artists after a spreadsheet was leaked containing a list of artist styles their AI was trained on. Meaning they can keep track of it and they trained the AI with those artists' works deliberately. They simply pretend this is impossible to figure out so that they might not be liable to seek permission and compensate the artists whose works were used.

OpenAI is definitely not the one arguing that they have stole data to train their AIs, and Disney will be fine whether AI requires owning the rights to training materials or not. Small artists, the ones protesting the most against it, will not. They are already seeing jobs and commission opportunities declining due to it.

Being publicly available in some form is not a permission to use and reproduce those works however you feel like. Only the real owner have the right to decide. We on the internet have always been a bit blasé about it, sometimes deservedly, but as we get to a point we are driving away the very same artists that we enjoy and get inspired by, maybe we should be a bit more understanding about their position.

In any reasonable society we would have actual ownership rights over the digital media that we buy and we wouldn't be beholden to fickle services or the inevitable decay of matter.

DRM-free copies, when properly backed up, are more secure than physical media. I have ripped MP3s from music CDs that already stopped working.

Right-wingers only seem to care about free speech when it applies to themselves. Anyone else and they'll get talking of "defeating the woke mind virus" or whatever ridiculous way they decide to demonize others.

Reminds me of that Sartre quote

I'm sorry to tell you but fanart is subjected to copyright, as are all derivative works that aren't sufficiently transformative, even if they aren't used commercially. It's a subjective measure but I doubt any judge would say those top images are completely distinct from the Minions or Simpsons. What happens is that usually the rights owners don't chase every single infringement, out of goodwill or simply because it would be too expensive to litigate every unauthorized use.

To be fair personally I think that's excessive. But I believe so especially because it makes artists lives more difficult. However AI isn't making it any easier either...

Absolutely and I'm with you on that. I think Copyright is excessively long and overly restrictive.

But that is another conversation.

The conversation we are having now is how to protect and compensate human creators that need their livelihoods to keep creating in our society as it is, when these new AI tools, trained on their works, are used to deliberately replace them.

There are many issues with copyright as it is right now, but it is literally the only resort that artists have left in this situation. It's not a given that opposing copyright hinders corporations. In this particular case there are many corporations salivating at the opportunity to replace human creators with AI, to get faster work, cheaper, to appropriate distinctive styles without needing to hire the people who developed them.

There is a chilling effect on its own happening here. There are writers and artists today that are seeing their jobs handed to AI, which decide creative works are not a feasible career to have anymore. Not only this is tragic by virtue of human interest alone, since AI relies on human creators to be trained, it's very possible that they will spiral into recursive derivativeness and become increasingly stale, devoid of fresh ideas and styles.

That's a rebuttal on the level of "if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to hear it". Legally, theoretically, you should need permission just as much, but nobody is going to sue you over something nobody else sees.

Copyright addresses reproduction and distribution, paid or not, including derivative works. There are exemptions for journalism and education, AI advanced a lot by using copyrighted materials under the reasoning that it was technological research, but as it spun off into commercial use, its reliance on copyrighted materials for training has become much more questionable.

I don't think it's accurate to call the work of AI the same as the human brain, but most importantly, the difference is that humans and tools have and should have different rights. Someone can't simply point a camera at a picture and say "I can look at it with my eye and keep it in my memory, so why can't the camera?"

Because we ensure the right of learning for people. That doesn't mean it's a free pass to technologically process works however one sees fit.

Nevermind that the more people prodded AIs, the more they have found that the reproductions are much more identical than simply vaguely replicating style from them. People have managed to get whole sentences from books and obvious copies of real artwork, copyrighted characters and celebrities by prompting AI in specific ways.

Yep, Ernest Cline was always pro Torment Nexus.

That's the idea the book tries to convey, but even to the extent it gets idealized we see that Oasis is overmonetized and poor people have a harder time enjoying themselves compared to those who are better off. At one point Wade gets stuck on the education world because he doesn't have enough money to travel to other worlds.

Not that money doesn't buy entertainment in our world also, but we have a variety of free options too.

Nevermind that Wade in RPO doesn't give a single shit to everyone else dying in stack collapses or any other form of cyberpunk misery which that world is full of. As long as his VR theme park doesn't have too many ads.

DRM-free media (such as GOG games) do much more to guarantee continuous ownership than NFT could ever do.

Absolutely. Seeing that a concert ticket is tied to a venue with limited space, the venue can set how many tickets ought to be available for a show. Ultimately it depends on centralized verification, therefore there is no point in using NFTs for it.

If you take the Ready Player One's example of a metaverse, that is, one where people get to cosplay their favorite famous media properties, I don't think it's a wrong assessment.

Otherwise I would say VRChat is a much more honestly realized version of that.

Ironically I found the megacorp produced movie version much more palatable both because it wasn't stuck on making that which the author liked the only media worth obssessing about, it showed that fans of all eras enjoyed themselves equally in that world. And because it gave more of a human core to Halliday's quests and the plot, rather than it just being about who's more of a fanboy gets rich and gets the girl.

Seeing the book describe how Wade is so great at reciting every line of War Games just took me out of it. Am I supposed to be impressed by this second hand fawning over a different story? Is there even a point to that beyond Halliday/Ernest Cline thinking it's cool?

The Internet Archive has special status that gives it protections. What might kill it is the erosion of support for public libraries and such. The advancement of media companies' attempt to have absolute control over everything they release, by binding it into their own services.

Wouldn't it be the opposite? I'd think most people are more likely to have had sex than having killed a person. Maybe it's because they think sexual content might actually lead kids to want to have sex.

Nevermind that these games are not rated for children to begin with, so who is buying it for them?