Yep. And the streaming tech bros collusion with the industry mobsters took it to another level. The people making the art are a mere annoyance to the jerks profiting from it. And yet the ai which they think saves them from this annoyance requires the art be created in the first place. I guess the history of recorded music holds a fair amount to plunder . But art - and even pop music - is an expression and reflection of individuals and wider zeitgeist: actual humanity. I don’t see what value is added when a person creates something semi unique, and a supercomputer burns massive amounts of energy to mimic it. At this stage all of supposed AI is a marketing gimmic to sell things. Corporations once again showing their hostility to humanity.
uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 months ago
If letting AI train on other people’s works is unjust enrichment then what the record lables did to creatives through the entire 20th century taking ownership of their work through coercivw contracting is extra-unjust enrichment.
Not saying it isn’t, but it’s not new, and bothersome that we’re only complaining a lot now.
stellargmite@lemmy.world 4 months ago
FiskFisk33@startrek.website 4 months ago
don’t misunderstand me now, i really don’t want to defend record companies, but
legally they made deals and wrote contracts. It’s not really the same thing.
uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 months ago
When the labels held an oligopoly on access to the public, it was absolutely coercive when the choice was between having your work published while you got screwed vs. never being known ever.
This is one of the reasons the labels were so resistant to music on the internet in the first place (which Thomas Dolby and David Bowie were experimenting with in the early 1990s and why they hired US ICE to raid the Dotcom estate in New Zealand because it wasn’t just about MegaUpload being used for piracy sometimes. (PS: That fight is still going on, twelve years later.)