Gregory's Server@ajsadauskas @technology @music@fedibb.ml @music@lemmy.ml Except (correct me if I'm wrong here) this sounds like a call for expanding copyright -- but it's *still* not "stealing a car." It never was stealing a car, and making the copyright maximalist argument feels as wrong now as then. Training a neural net isn't stealing (yet), corps like MSFT /Alphabet will be able to weather any changes to IP law, but imo this rhetoric is going to hurt the legions of small artists discovering and working with this new medium.
|
2 comments
@ajsadauskas @technology @music@fedibb.ml @music@lemmy.ml Oh for sure. I just worry that the nearly-universal backlash against generative AI from academia/lefty/artists/policy wonky people (my people!) grounded in well-intended anti-corporate/consumer protection sentiment is carrying water for the same old copyright maximalist corporations. IMO, down that way is costly litigation, dragging artists in to prove their own workflows, a further erosion of fair use and the final death blow of de minimis... |
@emoryr @technology @music@fedibb.ml @music@lemmy.ml It's more of a cynical tongue-in-cheek take. For the record, I totally agree that breaching copyright is not the same as stealing a car.
"Creators must be paid" is a recurring argument for maintaining copyrights as a system.
But how much it matters seems to vary widely, depending on whether it's a 16-year-old kid using Napster, or a multi-trillion-dollar multinational that benefits from creators not being paid for their work.