3 ms·

If this kind of abstract copyright regime of 'I had the idea first, and anyone who uses a derivative of my idea must pay me money!' is a very sillpery slope of

by novok 4y ago

If this kind of abstract copyright regime of 'I had the idea first, and anyone who uses a derivative of my idea must pay me money!' is a very sillpery slope of anyone who makes art or music of any genre needing to pay a royalty to sony/disney, because that is where these 'flavor copyrights' will end up going. The right kind of ambitious amoral lawyer in a common law regime will leverage an AI royalty law into a generic style copyright law because that is what will be needed to write this law properly. And on top of that, it will become a spotify where each creator gets a sum total of $0.00000000001 per AI their media item was trained on and maybe a few dollars a month, while paying a greater tax to apple-sony-disney whenever their AI style recognizers charge you a royalty bill for using whatever bullshit styles it notices in your media items. Copyright should stay in it's 'exact duplication' box, lest we release an even worse intellectual property monster on the world.

wwweston 4y ago
> If this kind of abstract copyright regime of 'I had the idea first, and anyone who uses a derivative of my idea must pay me money!' is a very sillpery slope This is a cartoon conception of both existing copyright and the proposal I described. Copyright applies to works, not "ideas" (William Gibson doesn't have a copyright claim on the "idea" of a virtual reality but he does on _Neuromancer_ as a work). It gives creators incentives and a stake in their work by allowing for some degree of control in how works are used and especially how they're distributed. What I'm proposing isn't that different, and it's simple: People should be able to decide if their work is put into a training set, and what they get in return for it. That's it. No "flavor copyrights." No ownership of ideas. Just a claim on the creator's work and how it's used/ distributed. Specifically updated to cover a case that didn't exist 10 years ago, a case whose explicit intention is reproduction of not just one narrow aspect of the work but a combinatorially large number of aspects of the work (there's no other reason for adding it to the training set, that's the nature of these models). > it will become a spotify where each creator gets a sum total of $0.00000000001 per AI their media item was trained on "the artists will get such a small payout so we should make sure they get nothing" is quite the take. I think "artists should be able to negotiate what consideration they want in return for their work for a training set" is a better one. It's certainly better than "people collecting training data should be able to take anything they can get their digital hands on without any consideration other than possession." Maybe some artists would take a nanocent per use. Maybe they wouldn't. That should be up to them. Part of the reason why services like Spotify are so terrible economically is the way digital rights were assumed by labels and streamers often as extensions of older pre-digital conceptions without much in the way of negotiation by artists. The current moment is a chance to do better across an equally large (if not larger) technological shift.

by novok 4y ago

wwweston 4y ago

> If this kind of abstract copyright regime of 'I had the idea first, and anyone who uses a derivative of my idea must pay me money!' is a very sillpery slope This is a cartoon conception of both existing copyright and the proposal I described. Copyright applies to works, not "ideas" (William Gibson doesn't have a copyright claim on the "idea" of a virtual reality but he does on _Neuromancer_ as a work). It gives creators incentives and a stake in their work by allowing for some degree of control in how works are used and especially how they're distributed. What I'm proposing isn't that different, and it's simple: People should be able to decide if their work is put into a training set, and what they get in return for it. That's it. No "flavor copyrights." No ownership of ideas. Just a claim on the creator's work and how it's used/ distributed. Specifically updated to cover a case that didn't exist 10 years ago, a case whose explicit intention is reproduction of not just one narrow aspect of the work but a combinatorially large number of aspects of the work (there's no other reason for adding it to the training set, that's the nature of these models). > it will become a spotify where each creator gets a sum total of $0.00000000001 per AI their media item was trained on "the artists will get such a small payout so we should make sure they get nothing" is quite the take. I think "artists should be able to negotiate what consideration they want in return for their work for a training set" is a better one. It's certainly better than "people collecting training data should be able to take anything they can get their digital hands on without any consideration other than possession." Maybe some artists would take a nanocent per use. Maybe they wouldn't. That should be up to them. Part of the reason why services like Spotify are so terrible economically is the way digital rights were assumed by labels and streamers often as extensions of older pre-digital conceptions without much in the way of negotiation by artists. The current moment is a chance to do better across an equally large (if not larger) technological shift.