4 ms·

Exactly. This feels like the same arguments used against adblocking. Similarly, the analysis is quite one sided. Publishers' weakening hold on copyright does d

Exactly. This feels like the same arguments used against adblocking. Similarly, the analysis is quite one sided. Publishers' weakening hold on copyright does disincentive them from publishing online, but that's counterbalanced by their economic need to be on the Internet. AI weakens copyright. That's a good thing. It has been absurdly strong for way too long. Don't just consider the wants of the publishers and authors; consider the wants of the consumers as well, to be able to redistribute, remix, adapt or build upon existing materials without creators' consent (e.g. memes). [1] I also note that their use of "open distribution" refers to free as in beer, not as in speech. This article goes completely against the principles of free culture [2]. [1] https://www.techdirt.com/2011/04/08/if-youre-arguing-that-someone-deserves-copyright-your-argument-is-wrong/ https://www.techdirt.com/2011/04/08/if-youre-arguing-that-so... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-culture_movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-culture_movement

dns_snek 3y ago
> Don't just consider the wants of the publishers and authors; consider the wants of the consumers as well The problem is that copyright can only be enforced by those with the means to do so; but more importantly, it can be abused by anyone with the means to do so. The food chain is roughly: 1. Mega corporations 2. Small corporations 3. Individual for-profit leeches (e.g. the vast majority of "react" content on Youtube) 4. Small creators Nobody will use "AI" tools to erode the copyright of megacorporations like Disney or Nintendo. You could be entirely within your rights to do what you're doing, but they'll sue you regardless. The overwhelming majority of people will roll over because they don't have the resources to fight it. On the other end of the spectrum, everyone already steals from small creators, and AI tools will make it even easier to do so. As a rule they don't have the resources to start lawsuits against corporations. Most of them don't even fight against leech ("react") content because it comes with an implicit threat of public retaliation, harassment, or worse. This kind of infringement is thriving across various platforms and very few people seem to care. So in summary, I'd say that you're not so much weakening copyright as a concept, you're just further weakening the rights of small creators who are already being infringed on by everyone - not cool.
- squigz 3y ago
  > Nobody will use "AI" tools to erode the copyright of megacorporations like Disney or Nintendo. People have been using every turn at their disposal to erode copyright of megacorporations for decades. Their love of suing hasn't stopped us yet. I can't really see it stopping any time soon.
  - dns_snek 3y ago
    What I tried to get across is that AI won't erode their copyright in any meaningful way. If they don't like what you're doing, they'll sue regardless of what the copyright laws say.
    - squigz 3y ago
      I disagree with the first part (but maybe I'm just too optimistic) but certainly not the second.
- CaptainFever 3y ago
  This is exactly the thought trap I was talking about. Your analysis solely focuses on the creator, but leaves out the rights of the consumer. You view copyright as a moral right (it being "not cool" to violate it), but forget to consider that it is first and foremost an economic tool. Remember that copyright is a temporary monopoly granted by the government; a compromise to incentivise creators to ultimately benefit the public. The public's needs should come first, and only restricted when required for limited purposes, e.g. incentives. And I believe it is in the public's interest for data to be readily analysed and remixed, no matter what the creators want, with restrictions only there to allow things like paywalls and (actually) purchasing digital media.

dns_snek 3y ago

> Don't just consider the wants of the publishers and authors; consider the wants of the consumers as well The problem is that copyright can only be enforced by those with the means to do so; but more importantly, it can be abused by anyone with the means to do so. The food chain is roughly: 1. Mega corporations 2. Small corporations 3. Individual for-profit leeches (e.g. the vast majority of "react" content on Youtube) 4. Small creators Nobody will use "AI" tools to erode the copyright of megacorporations like Disney or Nintendo. You could be entirely within your rights to do what you're doing, but they'll sue you regardless. The overwhelming majority of people will roll over because they don't have the resources to fight it. On the other end of the spectrum, everyone already steals from small creators, and AI tools will make it even easier to do so. As a rule they don't have the resources to start lawsuits against corporations. Most of them don't even fight against leech ("react") content because it comes with an implicit threat of public retaliation, harassment, or worse. This kind of infringement is thriving across various platforms and very few people seem to care. So in summary, I'd say that you're not so much weakening copyright as a concept, you're just further weakening the rights of small creators who are already being infringed on by everyone - not cool.

squigz 3y ago
> Nobody will use "AI" tools to erode the copyright of megacorporations like Disney or Nintendo. People have been using every turn at their disposal to erode copyright of megacorporations for decades. Their love of suing hasn't stopped us yet. I can't really see it stopping any time soon.
- dns_snek 3y ago
  What I tried to get across is that AI won't erode their copyright in any meaningful way. If they don't like what you're doing, they'll sue regardless of what the copyright laws say.
  - squigz 3y ago
    I disagree with the first part (but maybe I'm just too optimistic) but certainly not the second.
CaptainFever 3y ago
This is exactly the thought trap I was talking about. Your analysis solely focuses on the creator, but leaves out the rights of the consumer. You view copyright as a moral right (it being "not cool" to violate it), but forget to consider that it is first and foremost an economic tool. Remember that copyright is a temporary monopoly granted by the government; a compromise to incentivise creators to ultimately benefit the public. The public's needs should come first, and only restricted when required for limited purposes, e.g. incentives. And I believe it is in the public's interest for data to be readily analysed and remixed, no matter what the creators want, with restrictions only there to allow things like paywalls and (actually) purchasing digital media.