3 ms·

I stopped reading at "“We have a moral and commercial responsibility to our artists..." It's true, but they big music companies are well known for their busine

I stopped reading at "“We have a moral and commercial responsibility to our artists..." It's true, but they big music companies are well known for their business practices.

CharlesW 4y ago
It's illustrative that, even with its history of lopsided deals with creators, Universal Music has the ethical high ground in this case because at least they have legally-binding business arrangements with their artists.
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  There is no ethical high ground here. There is only creative output bent towards the artificial framework of capitalism. One could argue there is some weak ethical underpinning in "In the absence of higher moral values, one should simply adhere to previous agreements and laws..." Except previous agreements and laws give basically no guidance on the topic of "Can I use this data to train a machine to make more data?" Especially if the thusly-created data can't even, itself, be copyrighted. It's a novel use-case unpredicted by the existing copyright framework.
- kneebonian 4y ago
  "It's better than legal we are using the law to keep justice away" - PHB, Dilbert
omginternets 4y ago
It would at least be entertaining to see the RIAA sue companies rather than individuals for a change.
KMnO4 4y ago
“Hey independent artist, let’s make a deal. You spend hundreds or thousands of hours creating music and we’ll help you sell it” “Sure, and I assume you’ll want a 10% cut?” “Nope, give me 80% if someone buys it” “But people don’t buy music anymore. How much money will you give me if a thousand people stream my music?” “We can do $2. Take it or leave it.”
Mountain_Skies 4y ago
Reminds me of when Garth Brooks went on a crusade against used CD stores selling his albums without him getting a cut. After the predictable blowback, he claimed it wasn't his income he was fighting for, it was all the small indy artists he was protecting even though the bulk of used CD sales were of mainstream artists like Brooks. Eventually he realized no one was buying that excuse and he dropped his opposition (or maybe one of his legal staff explained first sale doctrine to him).

I stopped reading at "“We have a moral and commercial responsibility to our artists..." It's true, but they big music companies are well known for their business practices.

CharlesW 4y ago

It's illustrative that, even with its history of lopsided deals with creators, Universal Music has the ethical high ground in this case because at least they have legally-binding business arrangements with their artists.

shadowgovt 4y ago
There is no ethical high ground here. There is only creative output bent towards the artificial framework of capitalism. One could argue there is some weak ethical underpinning in "In the absence of higher moral values, one should simply adhere to previous agreements and laws..." Except previous agreements and laws give basically no guidance on the topic of "Can I use this data to train a machine to make more data?" Especially if the thusly-created data can't even, itself, be copyrighted. It's a novel use-case unpredicted by the existing copyright framework.
kneebonian 4y ago
"It's better than legal we are using the law to keep justice away" - PHB, Dilbert

omginternets 4y ago

It would at least be entertaining to see the RIAA sue companies rather than individuals for a change.

KMnO4 4y ago

“Hey independent artist, let’s make a deal. You spend hundreds or thousands of hours creating music and we’ll help you sell it” “Sure, and I assume you’ll want a 10% cut?” “Nope, give me 80% if someone buys it” “But people don’t buy music anymore. How much money will you give me if a thousand people stream my music?” “We can do $2. Take it or leave it.”

Mountain_Skies 4y ago

Reminds me of when Garth Brooks went on a crusade against used CD stores selling his albums without him getting a cut. After the predictable blowback, he claimed it wasn't his income he was fighting for, it was all the small indy artists he was protecting even though the bulk of used CD sales were of mainstream artists like Brooks. Eventually he realized no one was buying that excuse and he dropped his opposition (or maybe one of his legal staff explained first sale doctrine to him).