3 ms·

Digital music is infinitely reproducible, but that doesn't mean that I am allowed to illegally download it. It is similar with articles. The author decides who

Digital music is infinitely reproducible, but that doesn't mean that I am allowed to illegally download it. It is similar with articles. The author decides who can consume their art,

falcor84 1y ago
> The author decides who can consume their art, What?! How would that even happen? Unless you limit your definition of art to performing at salon events, that doesn't make much sense. Typically art is released into the world and at best the authors can get a bit of rent from the people who consume it (typically via a publisher), but they don't have any control over who the consumers would be.
- BenGosub 1y ago
  For example, I decide if my music is going to stream on YouTube or Spotify, or it will only sell on Bandcamp. I decide if I am going to go with a publisher, which publisher and what platforms. What you label as "typically" has only been the case for the past ≈15 years.
  - wiseowise 1y ago
    You don’t decide anything on the platforms. The moment you upload your music there, they decide what they do with it.
  - falcor84 1y ago
    YouTube and Spotify and Bandcamp are distribution platforms, not your consumers
    - BenGosub 1y ago
      My point is that just like I decide if I am going to distribute to streaming services, I also should be able to decide if I am going to allow models to train on my work. Isn't this something obvious?
      - falcor84 1y ago
        It is not just not obvious to me, but goes entirely against my mental model. Staying with your example of music or book authors - a musician or author might choose which distribution platforms they work with, but they don't have the ability to tell a particular shop to not resell their record/book, let alone to tell a particular "consumer" not to listen to it / read it.
        BenGosub 1y ago
        Yes, I agree with you and when you give distribution rights to a third party they have the distribution control. How I imagine this mess being resolved is by a middleman, like the distribution services in music, there need to be companies licensing training data, from which artists could take a small cut.
xscott 1y ago
> doesn't mean that I am allowed to illegally download it That word "illegally" is carrying some weight there. You only get to have those rules in law because the rest of us agreed to them in some sense. And in this particular case, the laws were created by powerful and wealthy media industries bribing politicians. There's not some universal truth about fairness here. It's just a set of conventions where people with guns show up and lock you in prison if you bypass someone else seeking rent.

Digital music is infinitely reproducible, but that doesn't mean that I am allowed to illegally download it. It is similar with articles. The author decides who can consume their art,

falcor84 1y ago

> The author decides who can consume their art, What?! How would that even happen? Unless you limit your definition of art to performing at salon events, that doesn't make much sense. Typically art is released into the world and at best the authors can get a bit of rent from the people who consume it (typically via a publisher), but they don't have any control over who the consumers would be.

BenGosub 1y ago
For example, I decide if my music is going to stream on YouTube or Spotify, or it will only sell on Bandcamp. I decide if I am going to go with a publisher, which publisher and what platforms. What you label as "typically" has only been the case for the past ≈15 years.
- wiseowise 1y ago
  You don’t decide anything on the platforms. The moment you upload your music there, they decide what they do with it.
- falcor84 1y ago
  YouTube and Spotify and Bandcamp are distribution platforms, not your consumers
  - BenGosub 1y ago
    My point is that just like I decide if I am going to distribute to streaming services, I also should be able to decide if I am going to allow models to train on my work. Isn't this something obvious?
    - falcor84 1y ago
      It is not just not obvious to me, but goes entirely against my mental model. Staying with your example of music or book authors - a musician or author might choose which distribution platforms they work with, but they don't have the ability to tell a particular shop to not resell their record/book, let alone to tell a particular "consumer" not to listen to it / read it.
      - BenGosub 1y ago
        Yes, I agree with you and when you give distribution rights to a third party they have the distribution control. How I imagine this mess being resolved is by a middleman, like the distribution services in music, there need to be companies licensing training data, from which artists could take a small cut.

xscott 1y ago

> doesn't mean that I am allowed to illegally download it That word "illegally" is carrying some weight there. You only get to have those rules in law because the rest of us agreed to them in some sense. And in this particular case, the laws were created by powerful and wealthy media industries bribing politicians. There's not some universal truth about fairness here. It's just a set of conventions where people with guns show up and lock you in prison if you bypass someone else seeking rent.