Comment on Audacity adds AI audio editing capabilities thanks to free Intel OpenVINO plugins

tabular@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

• ArmokGoB@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Considering copyright is unethical to begin with…

  source

  • tabular@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    I could almost agree but I think there is value in copyleft: a hack of copyright to ensure users have some of the rights copyright denies when you get a copy/derivative work from another.

    With no copyright it’s great that you won’t be sued if you share software but in practice a mere binary isn’t enough (reverse engineering is impractical). We need the source code to be able to change it (or understand what it’s even doing). I won’t support removing all copyright law without a solution.

    source
• Elderos@sh.itjust.works ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Define ethically sourced.

  source

  • hansl@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Free range grass fed.

    source
  • tabular@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Getting permission to copy each music work for use in training data may be ethically important while the creators are dependant on income from that work to survive, or just as a social contract.

    source

    • Meowoem@sh.itjust.works ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      The capitalist mindset really is a weird one, rent seeking is out of control. We’re talking about a tool that allows independent creators and hobby users to improve the quality of their projects but all you can think about is the possibility of getting a couple of dollars in royalties.

      Regular users being able to use advanced noise reduction allows regular people to better compete with corporations, it’s the sort of technology which can help displace the monopolies which rule the world. But you’re against it because they didn’t give you 6 cents for listening to your cover version of country roads

      source

      • tabular@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Consider there is nuance here. I write code and want people to use it but only if they follow the license that means they must share it with others. I liked the idea of AI creating art for me until I considered the tool’s method of creation and the negative effect taking from artists may have.

        I suggest supporting independent creators directly instead.

        source
      • General_Effort@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Completely agree, but one thing:

        help displace the monopolies

        These monopolies are a social/legal problem. It can’t be solved with technology. The increased FTC action in the US under the Biden administration are really a hopeful sign.

        I am worried about the number of people who want to go in the opposite direction, which “ethically sourced” is simply code for.

        source
    • kuneho@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      you are saying this like the music indistry weren’t about resampling/remixing/rethinking existing songs/melodies/phrases already. it always was. and that’s fine! people always gets down to the source if they hear something fancy.

      source

      • tabular@lemmy.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        I can’t image people always get to the source as my understanding most music does not has attribution of significant portions copied.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• summerof69@lemm.ee ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  How do music creators feel about their work potentially being regenerated and used in other’s works?

  They can always discuss that with their psychologists! :)

  source