6 ms·

Using section 1201 of the DMCA (anti-circumvention) to slam the door shut is an UNBELIEVABLY scummy move. An outright shameful concession. The statute is essen

Using section 1201 of the DMCA (anti-circumvention) to slam the door shut is an UNBELIEVABLY scummy move. An outright shameful concession. The statute is essentially "we don't care if what you're doing is legal or not and we're not going to wait for a court to decide, we're playing this trump card to make what you're doing illegal regardless of it's copyright status." It's equally scummy whether it's over AI training, preventing someone from using material from a DVD under fair use, or suing for Joe Blow for refilling his inkjet cartridges.

gravitronic 4y ago
In 2 out of 3 of your examples the "victim" is a large corporation
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > In 2 out of 3 of your examples the “victim” is a large corporation No, in none of them are the victims mainly large corporations. In two out of the three, the scumbags who are victimizing are acting through a large corporation, but I’m not sure how that is material.
- simonh 4y ago
  Which employ real people to do jobs. What’s your point, that people working for large corporations don’t count for some reason? What reason is that?
amrocha 4y ago
Artists are literally already being affected by their art being scraped to train these models. According to my artist friends, commissions are down, and there's reports of professional positions being replaced as well. Do you not think that the response is justified in the face of the livelihood of artists being actually stolen from them as we speak?
- CamperBob2 4y ago
  No. If a robot can do your job, it's time to find another. Copyright maximalism makes the creative world worse for everyone in the long run.
  - amrocha 4y ago
    The robot can't do the job. The Robot needs the artist to train. The robot can't train on its own output because it doesn't understand what it's supposed to be drawing. Artists don't need to collaborate with the tool running their livelihoods either. Ruining the lives of actual creatives is making the creative world a worse place right now, so spare me the thought for the long run.
    - avereveard 4y ago
      And what did the artist do at art school/formation years? Just learned strokes with zero references to works of art nor culture? Besides a diffuser trained just in public domain is going to be as dangerous to their job, they seem to generalize well enough, and if their style is anywhere close to anything existing pre 1920 they will have ai spitting out the exact same thing they do and no recourse. And to get to the point, actual creations can use these tools to increase their output then fold or more. A reduction in commission price is to be expected, as is expected for them to use the tools to produce more. They are not outcompeted by ai, they are outcompeted by a new crop of artists bracing ai tools to work at a greater volume and thus can sustain a lower price point. More art will be produced, not less, and those in true danger are the artisans that aren't embracing the ai industrial revolution.
      - Riverheart 4y ago
        Humans come and go but AI is forever and shouldn’t be treated as if they’re the same. Human society is for humans but we’re creating immortal models that can be forever improved and will outperform all current and future humans. So what, the current generation embraces it and the next gets replaced by it entirely? Seems tech won’t be satisfied till its devalued the entire human experience of growth and effort and replaced it with quick answers and cheap results.
Blackthorn 4y ago
Well, you live by copyright law minutia and you die by copyright law minutia. If this was glaze's intended purpose, and it actually works, then hats off to them for the brilliant hack.
bawolff 4y ago
While i don't disagree, it also probably isn't even in the top 10 scummy anti-circumvention uses.

gravitronic 4y ago

In 2 out of 3 of your examples the "victim" is a large corporation

dragonwriter 4y ago
> In 2 out of 3 of your examples the “victim” is a large corporation No, in none of them are the victims mainly large corporations. In two out of the three, the scumbags who are victimizing are acting through a large corporation, but I’m not sure how that is material.
simonh 4y ago
Which employ real people to do jobs. What’s your point, that people working for large corporations don’t count for some reason? What reason is that?

amrocha 4y ago

Artists are literally already being affected by their art being scraped to train these models. According to my artist friends, commissions are down, and there's reports of professional positions being replaced as well. Do you not think that the response is justified in the face of the livelihood of artists being actually stolen from them as we speak?

CamperBob2 4y ago
No. If a robot can do your job, it's time to find another. Copyright maximalism makes the creative world worse for everyone in the long run.
- amrocha 4y ago
  The robot can't do the job. The Robot needs the artist to train. The robot can't train on its own output because it doesn't understand what it's supposed to be drawing. Artists don't need to collaborate with the tool running their livelihoods either. Ruining the lives of actual creatives is making the creative world a worse place right now, so spare me the thought for the long run.
  - avereveard 4y ago
    And what did the artist do at art school/formation years? Just learned strokes with zero references to works of art nor culture? Besides a diffuser trained just in public domain is going to be as dangerous to their job, they seem to generalize well enough, and if their style is anywhere close to anything existing pre 1920 they will have ai spitting out the exact same thing they do and no recourse. And to get to the point, actual creations can use these tools to increase their output then fold or more. A reduction in commission price is to be expected, as is expected for them to use the tools to produce more. They are not outcompeted by ai, they are outcompeted by a new crop of artists bracing ai tools to work at a greater volume and thus can sustain a lower price point. More art will be produced, not less, and those in true danger are the artisans that aren't embracing the ai industrial revolution.
    - Riverheart 4y ago
      Humans come and go but AI is forever and shouldn’t be treated as if they’re the same. Human society is for humans but we’re creating immortal models that can be forever improved and will outperform all current and future humans. So what, the current generation embraces it and the next gets replaced by it entirely? Seems tech won’t be satisfied till its devalued the entire human experience of growth and effort and replaced it with quick answers and cheap results.

Blackthorn 4y ago

Well, you live by copyright law minutia and you die by copyright law minutia. If this was glaze's intended purpose, and it actually works, then hats off to them for the brilliant hack.

bawolff 4y ago

While i don't disagree, it also probably isn't even in the top 10 scummy anti-circumvention uses.