3 ms·
The problem isn't that people are luddites and hate technology, it's that it has been built on the backs of peoples artistic work, and they haven't been asked o
by hpen 2y ago
The problem isn't that people are luddites and hate technology, it's that it has been built on the backs of peoples artistic work, and they haven't been asked or compensated for it.
- rickydroll 2y agoThe artists complaining about this have built their careers and revenue streams on the backs of thousands of years of artistic creation. Where's the compensation for those earlier artists? Did you get their permission to use their content to train yourself? In almost every creative field, you learn by example. You watch what the Masters have done before you. You know their techniques, tools, and ways of expressing things, then mix those tools and techniques into something you think is original. It's almost guaranteed that somebody else had the same thought you did. Maybe they expressed it, maybe they didn't, maybe they rejected it, maybe it's not been published, but somebody else had the same thought that you did. An individual is not unique, and people are not unique in feeling offended that they are not unique. People felt offended whenever animals did something previously thought to be uniquely human. People were offended when it was understood that humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor. People felt offended when it was discovered that the Earth was not the center of the universe. Like Galileo, the current state of AI tells us, "And yet it moves."
- hpen 2y agoSuch bullshit. We have copyright protections to keep people compensated for their artistic work. Tech has changed, the copyright law didn't have foresight to protect against this. But that is definitely the intention of such law.
- rickydroll 2y agoCopyright has nothing to do with compensation. It is a monopoly over the reproduction of an expression of a "creative" thought that the copyright holder may not even have created. Enforcing copyright is a way to extract rent.
- hpen 2y agoSo biased
- hpen 2y agoAre you not aware of how music is sold / streamed etc?
- rickydroll 2y agoYes, I am. Music is currently layered by a series of copyrights, including their copyright music copyright, mechanical reproduction copyright, etc. Each stage exists as a layer to accommodate a new technology, and rent is extracted in each stage. Music on physical media, files, or streams is not sold. You rent a "performance license," which permits playing the music on that media. The type of performance license depends on the context in which you are "performing." see: https://www.soundreef.com/en/blog/music-licenses/ https://www.soundreef.com/en/blog/music-licenses/ As I said, copyright has nothing to do with compensation. It creates a monopoly, and the purpose of a monopoly is to enable rent-seeking.
- hpen 2y agoIs it rent seeking if the author owns those rights?
- rickydroll 2y agoyes. let me google that for you. https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/economics/rent-seeking/ https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/economics/re...
- hpen 2y agoYour own definition "When an individual or an entity seeks to increase their own wealth without benefiting society". That doesn't sound like music or copyright
- hpen 2y ago
- jokethrowaway 2y agoIf you are an artist, copyright protections stop you from reproducing work, not from looking at it