6 ms·

> "The bottom line is this," the firm, known as a16z, wrote. "Imposing the cost of actual or potential copyright liability on the creators of AI models will eit

> "The bottom line is this," the firm, known as a16z, wrote. "Imposing the cost of actual or potential copyright liability on the creators of AI models will either kill or significantly hamper their development." > The firm said payment for all of the copyrighted material already used in LLMs would cost the companies that built them "tens or hundreds of billions of dollars a year in royalty payments." https://www.businessinsider.com/marc-andreessen-horowitz-ai-copyright-2023-11 https://www.businessinsider.com/marc-andreessen-horowitz-ai-...

rideontime 3y ago
Good.
mattgreenrocks 3y ago
Starting a business is huge amounts of risk to begin with. Just because you may lose more doesn't mean you're magically exempt from being able to ignore that. Watching the superstars of venture capital whine that copyright is unfair is quite something, though.
plorkyeran 3y ago
Sounds like they need to find someone good at developing business models who can help them figure one out.
seurimas 3y ago
Doesn't that kind of demonstrate the value being actively stolen from the creators, more than anything? Copyright law killed Napster, too. That doesn't mean applying copyright law was wrong.
- unnamed76ri 3y ago
  And now the guy who started Napster is on the board of Spotify who just decided they weren’t going to pay small time artists for their music anymore. Go figure.
  - madeofpalk 3y ago
    Spotify and the rights holders come together and agree on the right price. Unfortunately, since long before Spotify ever existed, it's usually the record labels who owns the rights to the music and the actual creators still get shafted.
    - unnamed76ri 3y ago
      Except in this case, 10s of thousands of rights holders are just getting nothing as of the start of 2024 and I can tell you, Spotify certainly did not “come together” with any of us.
      - transcriptase 3y ago
        Didn’t they basically say they’re no longer going to bother paying for songs earning under $3 USD per year. It seems like the only people that will be impacted are the abusive auto-generated spammer accounts with thousands of garbage tracks uploaded garnering 1200 streams a year by people accidentally playing them via Google Home misinterpretations etc.
        unnamed76ri 3y ago
        1000 streams per year for each song. That’s not just that auto-generated junk. That’s a majority of ALL music on Spotify. So yes an individual song might be $3 per year but that just shows how poor their royalties are to begin with. And tries to obscure the fact that artists don’t just release one song ever. There’s thousands of artists who maybe even were somewhat successful at some point in their career but would have a lot of songs in their back catalog that don’t get that many streams annually. Suddenly they’ve gone from not making enough per stream from Spotify, to just getting paid nothing at all.
- Kiro 3y ago
  Of course it was wrong. Abolish all copyright.
Lev1a 3y ago
Oh no, the horror of the cost of doing business when you can't get away with a get-rich-quick-scheme fast enough to cash out and disappear.
duped 3y ago
What do you expect them to say, "we're cool with making less money and making it harder to make money?"
Vegenoid 3y ago
There are many areas of research, technological advancement, and construction which would proceed much more quickly than their current pace if we didn't force them do things in the way that society has decided is correct and just.
- MacsHeadroom 3y ago
  The constitution is clear that copyright is not "just;" it is a concession for the sole purpose of promoting "the Progress of Science and useful Arts," whose "unnatural restriction of natural rights must be carefully balanced." The fact that "research, technological advancement, and construction would proceed much more quickly" without copyright is exactly why abolishing copyright is the just and correct thing to do.
  - Vegenoid 3y ago
    “The constitution” is certainly not in favor of abolishing copyright, as it explicitly provides for its legality and usefulness. I am not sure where the “unnatural restriction” quote comes from, could you illuminate me? As far as what the constitution says about copyright, it seems only to say that it is “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts”
blibble 3y ago
> Imposing the cost of actual or potential copyright liability on the creators of AI models will either kill or significantly hamper their development. which, as an involuntary donor, is exactly what I want
Tao3300 3y ago
Well. Fuck those guys.
maronato 3y ago
“Payment for all workers who develop fields or man factories would cost the companies that operate them hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in salary payments” - slavers, probably. Of course slavery != AI, but the argument that we should protect companies from their expenses to enable their bad business model is very entitled and presumptuous. Thousands of companies have failed because their businesses models didn’t work, and thousands more will. AI will be fine. It probably won’t be as stupidly lucrative as the current model, but we’ll find a way.

rideontime 3y ago

Good.

mattgreenrocks 3y ago

Starting a business is huge amounts of risk to begin with. Just because you may lose more doesn't mean you're magically exempt from being able to ignore that. Watching the superstars of venture capital whine that copyright is unfair is quite something, though.

plorkyeran 3y ago

Sounds like they need to find someone good at developing business models who can help them figure one out.

seurimas 3y ago

Doesn't that kind of demonstrate the value being actively stolen from the creators, more than anything? Copyright law killed Napster, too. That doesn't mean applying copyright law was wrong.

unnamed76ri 3y ago
And now the guy who started Napster is on the board of Spotify who just decided they weren’t going to pay small time artists for their music anymore. Go figure.
- madeofpalk 3y ago
  Spotify and the rights holders come together and agree on the right price. Unfortunately, since long before Spotify ever existed, it's usually the record labels who owns the rights to the music and the actual creators still get shafted.
  - unnamed76ri 3y ago
    Except in this case, 10s of thousands of rights holders are just getting nothing as of the start of 2024 and I can tell you, Spotify certainly did not “come together” with any of us.
    - transcriptase 3y ago
      Didn’t they basically say they’re no longer going to bother paying for songs earning under $3 USD per year. It seems like the only people that will be impacted are the abusive auto-generated spammer accounts with thousands of garbage tracks uploaded garnering 1200 streams a year by people accidentally playing them via Google Home misinterpretations etc.
      - unnamed76ri 3y ago
        1000 streams per year for each song. That’s not just that auto-generated junk. That’s a majority of ALL music on Spotify. So yes an individual song might be $3 per year but that just shows how poor their royalties are to begin with. And tries to obscure the fact that artists don’t just release one song ever. There’s thousands of artists who maybe even were somewhat successful at some point in their career but would have a lot of songs in their back catalog that don’t get that many streams annually. Suddenly they’ve gone from not making enough per stream from Spotify, to just getting paid nothing at all.
Kiro 3y ago
Of course it was wrong. Abolish all copyright.

Lev1a 3y ago

Oh no, the horror of the cost of doing business when you can't get away with a get-rich-quick-scheme fast enough to cash out and disappear.

duped 3y ago

What do you expect them to say, "we're cool with making less money and making it harder to make money?"

Vegenoid 3y ago

There are many areas of research, technological advancement, and construction which would proceed much more quickly than their current pace if we didn't force them do things in the way that society has decided is correct and just.

MacsHeadroom 3y ago
The constitution is clear that copyright is not "just;" it is a concession for the sole purpose of promoting "the Progress of Science and useful Arts," whose "unnatural restriction of natural rights must be carefully balanced." The fact that "research, technological advancement, and construction would proceed much more quickly" without copyright is exactly why abolishing copyright is the just and correct thing to do.
- Vegenoid 3y ago
  “The constitution” is certainly not in favor of abolishing copyright, as it explicitly provides for its legality and usefulness. I am not sure where the “unnatural restriction” quote comes from, could you illuminate me? As far as what the constitution says about copyright, it seems only to say that it is “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts”

blibble 3y ago

> Imposing the cost of actual or potential copyright liability on the creators of AI models will either kill or significantly hamper their development. which, as an involuntary donor, is exactly what I want

Tao3300 3y ago

Well. Fuck those guys.

maronato 3y ago

“Payment for all workers who develop fields or man factories would cost the companies that operate them hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in salary payments” - slavers, probably. Of course slavery != AI, but the argument that we should protect companies from their expenses to enable their bad business model is very entitled and presumptuous. Thousands of companies have failed because their businesses models didn’t work, and thousands more will. AI will be fine. It probably won’t be as stupidly lucrative as the current model, but we’ll find a way.