Disband Copyright
Paul McCartney and Dua Lipa among artists urging British Prime Minister Starmer to rethink his AI copyright plans
Submitted 10 months ago by dwazou@lemm.ee to technology@lemmy.world
Comments
HawlSera@lemm.ee 10 months ago
maplebar@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Either get rid of copyright for everything and everyone, or don’t.
But no stupid BULLSHIT exception for AI slop.
gradual@lemmings.world 10 months ago
The solution is to get rid of copyright and patent laws.
They do not benefit the working class and anyone who tells you otherwise is a useful idiot.
HighFructoseLowStand@lemm.ee 10 months ago
What is the actual justification for this? Everyone has to pay for this except for AI companies, so AI can continue to develop into a universally regarded negative?
ryathal@sh.itjust.works 10 months ago
AI doesn’t copy things anymore than a person copies them by attending a concert or museum.
SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world 10 months ago
You need to learn how your god functions.
If it needs training data then it is effectively copying the training data.
mechoman444@lemmy.world 10 months ago
This is 100% correct. You can downvote this person all you want but their not wrong!
A painter doesn’t own anything to the estate of Rembrandt because they took inspiration from his paintings.
Jax@sh.itjust.works 10 months ago
This is such a bizarre rejection of reality
jsomae@lemmy.ml 10 months ago
why do you say AI is a universally regarded negative?
Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee 10 months ago
Because pretty much nobody wants it or likes it.
bufalo1973@lemm.ee 10 months ago
I don’t know the rest but I hate the spending of resources to feed the AI datacenters. It’s not normal building a nuclear powerplant to feed ONE data center.
HighFructoseLowStand@lemm.ee 10 months ago
Because overall people don’t like it, particularly when it comes to creating “art.”
deathbird@mander.xyz 10 months ago
I mean honestly this AI era is the time for these absurd anti-piracy penalties to be enforced. Meta downloads libgen? $250,000 per book plus jail time to the person who’s responsible.
Oh but laws aren’t for the rich and powerful you see!
deathbird@mander.xyz 10 months ago
Normal people pirate: one hundred bazillion dollars fine for download The Hangover.
One hundred bazillion dollars company pirate: special law to say it okay because poor company no can exist without pirate 😞
LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Most of us make fun of the stupid everyday masses for supporting laws that only benefit people who are vastly richer than they’ll ever be. But I’m almost guaranteed to get douchevoted for pointing out that the vast majority of musicians never get famous, never get recording contracts, and make their living from day to day playing little gigs wherever they can find them. They don’t materially suffer if AI includes patterns from their creations in its output. But we’re supposed to feel camaraderie with the likes of Paul McCartney and Elton John as if they’re fighting for the little guy. McCartney’s a billionaire and Elton’s more than halfway there - they both own recording companies ffs. If you’re going to do simple meme-brained thinking and put black or white hats on people, at least get the hats right.
NauticalNoodle@lemmy.ml 10 months ago
Yeah, but if the politicians don’t listen to hurt celebrities who then will they listen to? -The poors?
/s
AA5B@lemmy.world 10 months ago
- There’s a practical concern: how do you prevent ai without preventing people.
- What if you want to allow search, and how is that different than ai, legally or in practice?
- Does this put Reddit in a new light? Free content to users but charging for the api to do bulk download such as for ai?
bufalo1973@lemm.ee 10 months ago
Search is very different to create something.
AA5B@lemmy.world 10 months ago
In this context they’re identical - some automated process looking at all your content. While some of these agents may be honest, there’s no real distinction from search or ai or archive.
arararagi@ani.social 10 months ago
If AI companies can pirate, so can individuals.
AA5B@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Is the ai doing anything that isn’t already allowed for humans. The thing is, generative ai doesn’t copy someone’s art. It’s more akin to learning from someone’s art and creating you own art with that influence. Given that we want to continue allowing hunans access to art for learning, what’s the logical difference to an ai doing the same?
Did this already play out at Reddit? Ai was one of the reasons I left but I believe it’s a different scenario. I freely contributed my content to Reddit for the purposes of building an interactive community, but they changed the terms without my consent. I did NOT contribute my content so they could make money selling it for ai training
The only logical distinction I see with s ai aren’t human: an exception for humans does not apply to non-humans even if the activity is similar
maplebar@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Is the ai doing anything that isn’t already allowed for humans. The thing is, generative ai doesn’t copy someone’s art. It’s more akin to learning from someone’s art and creating you own art with that influence. Given that we want to continue allowing hunans access to art for learning, what’s the logical difference to an ai doing the same?
AI stans always say stuff like this, but it doesn’t make sense to me at all.
AI does not learn the same way that a human does: it has no senses of its own with which to observe the world or art, it has no lived experiences, it has no agency, preferences or subjectivity, and it has no real intelligence with which to interpret or understand the work that it is copying from. AI is simply a matrix of weights that has arbitrary data superimposed on it by people and companies.
Are you an artist or a creative person?
If you are then you must know that the things you create are certainly indirectly influenced by SOME of the things that you have experienced (be it walking around on a sunny day, your favorite scene from your favorite movie, the lyrics of a song, etc.), AS WELL AS your own unique and creative persona, your own ideas, your own philosophy, and your own personal development.
Look at how an artist creates a painting and compare it to how generative AI creates a painting. Similarly, look at how artists train and learn their craft and compare it to how generative AI models are trained. It’s an apples-to-oranges comparison.
(And that’s still ignoring the obvious corporate element and the four pillars of fair use consideration.)
ClamDrinker@lemmy.world 10 months ago
You picked the wrong thread for a nuanced question on a controversial topic.
But it seems the UK indeed has laws for this already if the article is to believed, as they don’t currently allow AI companies to train on copyrighted material (As per the article). As far as I know, in some other jurisdictions, a normal person would absolutely be allowed to pull a bunch of publicly available information, learn from it, and decide to make something new based on objective information that can be found within. And generally, that’s the rationale for AI companies used as well, seeing as there have been landmark cases ruled in the past to not be copyright infringement with wide acceptance for computers analyzing copyrighted information, such as against Google, for indexing copyrighted material in their search results. But perhaps an adjacent ruling was never accepted in the UK (which does seem strange, as Google does operate). But laws are messy, and perhaps there is an exception somewhere, and I’m certainly not an expert on UK law.
But people sadly don’t really come into this thread to discuss the actual details, they just see a headline that invokes a feeling of “AI Bad”, and so you coming in here with a reasonable question makes you a target. I wholly expect to be downvoted as well.
M0oP0o@mander.xyz 10 months ago
You know I am somewhat of a large language model myself.
Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 10 months ago
At this rate we will get access to more rights if we can figure out a way to legally classify ourselves as AI.
hissingssid@lemy.lol 10 months ago
AI really shows the absurdity of intellectual property as a concept, the very way we learn, every idea we can have, every mental image we can create is the sum of copying and adapting the things we perceive. IP is ontological incoherent for this reason you cannot “own” an idea so much as you can own the water of one part of a stream
DimFisher@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Absurd obscenities you spew my friend, the fact that an artist take influences from any kind of art form doesn’t mean the end result is not original and it is not intellectual property as that
godownloadacar@lemmy.cafe 10 months ago
Intellectual property is intellectual theft
arararagi@ani.social 10 months ago
I don’t disagree with you, but AI companies shouldn’t get an exclusive free pass.
hissingssid@lemy.lol 10 months ago
Oh yes, I am not saying that at all. I am still very unsure on my views of AI from a precautionary standpoint and I think that its commercial use will lead to more harm than good but if these things are the closest analogs we have to looking at how humans learn and create it shows IP is ridiculous- I mean we do not even need them to see this, if an idea was purely and solely one person’s property the idea of someone from the sentinel island inventing the cure for brain cancer is as likely as a team of oncologists at Oxford doing it.
WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today 10 months ago
They are just illegally selling us off as slaves. That is what is happening. All our fault for not having strong citizen watchdogs, clamping down on this behavior.
gradual@lemmings.world 10 months ago
All our fault for not having strong citizen watchdogs
We’re all too busy playing fortnite and watching marvel movies.
WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today 10 months ago
I’m planning food and will share. Problem is, well…
Agent641@lemmy.world 10 months ago
I wonder how they decided which artist to include in the thumbnail image.
Dead_or_Alive@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Moneys decided it. No one is going to click on a image for a old wrinkly white guy
thewedtdeservedit@lemmy.cafe 10 months ago
Well another two idiots that I’ll never listen to. Hey Metallica isn’t alone now
BlueMagma@sh.itjust.works 10 months ago
It’s always the people that fear for their assets that want things to stay the same.
I find it interesting that people who were pro pirating, are now against AI companies using copyrighted materials.
Personally, I think copyright was a dumb concept and shouldn’t exist. It’s time we get rid of it.
overcooked_sap@lemmy.ca 10 months ago
Slight difference between little Johny torrrenting the latest movie for personal use and an AI company doing it for commercial gain.
nova_ad_vitum@lemmy.ca 10 months ago
You should tell these companies then, because after pirating all the copyrighted information they will absolutely push for IP protections for AI output.
reksas@sopuli.xyz 10 months ago
should start up our own ai company anyone is free to join
Agent641@lemmy.world 10 months ago
I identify as an AI company.
reksas@sopuli.xyz 10 months ago
no no, i mean people should actually start utilizing this bullshit. Anyone can start a company and with some technical knowhow you can add somekind of ai crap to it. companies dont have to make profit or anything useful so there is no pressure to do anything with it.
But if it comes to copyright law not applying to ai companies, why should some rich assholes be only ones exploiting that? It might lead to some additional legal bullshit that excludes this hypotetical kind of ai company, but that would also highlight better that the law benefits only the rich.
thewedtdeservedit@lemmy.cafe 10 months ago
No more ads on youtube
echodot@feddit.uk 10 months ago
Oh good I see Labour are dealing with the real issues in society.
100_kg_90_de_belin@feddit.it 10 months ago
Modern Labour and not giving a fuck about workers, name a more iconic duo.
finitebanjo@lemmy.world 10 months ago
How tf did this Ponze Scheme even get as far as the UK Prime Minister’s desk?
echodot@feddit.uk 10 months ago
It’s not a Ponzi scheme. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean it’s a scam and even if it was a scam that wouldn’t be the type of scam that it was.
Absolute worst you could call it is false advertising, because AI does actually work just not very well.
finitebanjo@lemmy.world 10 months ago
A company that makes negative income every quarter forever, and whose latest edition costs a magnitude more power and is worse than the previous, is worth between $150 Bn and $300 Bn. Many other competing companies equally overvalued.
These are businesses who are only valuable because people keep investing in them. A Ponzi Scheme.
Takios@discuss.tchncs.de 10 months ago
hello yes I’m an ai company. let me torrent all the things pls thank you
potpotato@lemmy.world 10 months ago
My mind is AI and I need this content to train it.
ferric_carcinization@lemmy.ml 10 months ago
I’m not sure if my brain counts as artificial, but with all the microplastics, it sure ain’t organic.
phoenixz@lemmy.ca 10 months ago
Yeah no, only a select few special Ai companies, of course
Scrollone@feddit.it 10 months ago
That’s exactly what Meta did, they torrented the full libgen database of books.
If they can do it, anybody should be able to do it.
golden_zealot@lemmy.ml 10 months ago
I like how their whole excuse to that was “WE DIDN’T SEED ANY OF IT BACK THOUGH” which arguably makes it even worse lol.
finitebanjo@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Technically it was never illegal in the US to download copywritten content. It was illegal to distribute them. That was literally Meta’s defence in court: they didn’t seed any downloads.
drmoose@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Good, fuck copyright these counts have enough money already.
the_q@lemm.ee 10 months ago
I mean they were trained on copyrighted material and nothing has been done about that so…
DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 10 months ago
So abolish copyright law entirely instead of only allowing theft when capitalists do it.
thewedtdeservedit@lemmy.cafe 10 months ago
Exactly. Paul Mc Cartney have been trained on copyrighted material and should give his money back to the majors
Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee 10 months ago
That is definitely one of the most cooked takes I’ve heard in a while.
Why would anyone create anything if it can immediately be copied with no compensation to you?
RamblingPanda@lemmynsfw.com 10 months ago
I should create an AI start up and torrent all the content.
minoscopede@lemmy.world 10 months ago
It only seems to make a difference when the rich ones complain.
FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 10 months ago
While I understand their position, I disagree with it.
Training AI on copyrighted data - let’s take music for example - is no different to a kid at home listening to Beatles songs all day and using that as inspiration while learning how to write songs or play an instrument.
You cant copyright a style of music, a sound, or a song structure. As long as the AI isn’t just reproducing the copyrighted content “word for word”, I don’t see what the issue is.
Does the studio ghibli artist own that style of drawing? No, because you can’t own something like that. Others are free to draw whatever they want while replicating that style.
drmoose@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Exactly I’m a data engineer and people have no clue what they’re talking about in this thread.
If we require copyright for transformative work that would mean trillions lost in growth - its just something that cant even happen no matter how hard we’d want it. Most people are not even aware of the implications such copyright overreach would have.
So do you target AI training explicitly? How can that he even enforced? Is my review sentiment evaluation machine illegal now? What if I RAG copyrighted content in am I in jail now? How could this possible be ever enforced? It’s so stupid.
This issue is dominated by tech illiterate who jusy want to be angry at corporations but instead of doing something about it they fall for copyright propaganda.
MCasq_qsaCJ_234@lemmy.zip 10 months ago
If we don’t know how to control our emotions, they will lead us to make bad decisions. That emotion will only be temporary, but the decision will be permanent, and we’ll regret it later.
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 10 months ago
So do you target AI training explicitly?
No. Same rules as everyone else.
How can that he even enforced?
Disclosure of training sources
Is my review sentiment evaluation machine illegal now?
If your sources are copyrighted, yes.
What if I RAG copyrighted content in am I in jail now?
Unlikely. None payment of restitution in a civil case could end in jail via contempt of court.
How could this possible be ever enforced?
The same way other copyright claims are enforced.
This issue is dominated by tech illiterate
Literacy in technology has no effect on the law.
fall for copyright propaganda.
We’re had many years of publishing strengthening their legal position. It’s case law, not propaganda.
FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 10 months ago
Hit the nail on the head.
vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 10 months ago
if i learn a book by heart, and then go around making money by reciting it, then that’s illegal. same thing.
godownloadacar@lemmy.cafe 10 months ago
It shouldn’t be illegal
FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 10 months ago
That’s not what AI is doing though. A better analogy using your book example would be learning a book by heart, then going and writing a new book in that same style.
Is that illegal? No.
phx@lemmy.ca 10 months ago
a) An AI is not a person. We do not WANT an AI to be regarded as equal to a person under law. That’s a terrible idea
b) How is that AI training material being generated? Did they buy copies of every copyrighted song and every movie by every artist to include in the training data? If it’s music and streamed, are they paying the artist royalties based on every “play” the AI is processing during training the same as of a human played the song over and over again to learn a long? How about sheet music? Because if a PERSON is learning from training material, the license for sheet music and training materials is different than a playable copy of the same work.
I’m willing to bet that the AI companies didn’t even pay for the regular copies of works much less ones licensed for use as training materials for humans, but it didn’t matter because an AI is an advanced algorithm and NOT A HUMAN.
kevin2107@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Some company’s own some wildly absurd things, copyright is only enforced if you have the money to do your own policing
SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.world 10 months ago
On the other hand copyright laws have been extended to insane time lengths.
seeigel@feddit.org 10 months ago
It’s never the grandkits. The Beatles sold the rights to their songs.
AtariDump@lemmy.world 10 months ago
What’s a Dua Lipa?
ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 10 months ago
I’d rather people not profiting off copyrighted work be permitted than those who profit off it
gabbath@lemmy.world 10 months ago
I read this as pro-piracy and anti-AI, generally speaking, since the former is for personal use (art should be free to share and enjoy) while the latter is for commercial use (you should not be allowed to freely profit off the work of artists).
Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.world 10 months ago
AI for me but not for thee
StonerCowboy@lemm.ee 10 months ago
How funny this is gonna get when AI copyrights Nintendo stuff. Ah man I got my popcorn ready.
Gluca23@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Greed have no age.
hopesdead@startrek.website 10 months ago
Says the dude who completed a song using AI.
jsomae@lemmy.ml 10 months ago
Can the rest of us please use copyrighted material without permission?
rottingleaf@lemmy.world 10 months ago
But you, casual BitTorrent, eDonkey (I like good old things) and such user, can’t.
It’s literally a law allowing people doing some business violate a right of others, or, looking at that from another side, making only people not working for some companies subject to a law …
What I mean - at some point in my stupid life I thought only individuals should ever be subjects of law. Where now the sides are the government and some individual, a representative (or a chain of people making decisions) of the government should be a side, not its entirety.
For everything happening a specific person, easy to determine, should be legally responsible. Or a group of people (say, a chain from top to this specific one in a hierarchy).
Because otherwise this happens, the differentiation between a person and a business and so on allows other differentiation kinds, and also a person having fewer rights than a business or some other organization. And it will always drift in that direction, because a group is stronger than an individual.
And in this specific case somebody would be able to sue the prime minister.
OK, it’s an utopia, similar to anarcho-capitalism, just in a different dimension, in that of responsibility.
gradual@lemmings.world 10 months ago
Good. Copyright and patent laws need to die.
All the money wasted enforcing them and taken from customers could be better spent on other things.
Creators will still create, as they always have. We just won’t have millionaire scumbags like ‘paul mccartney’ living like kings while children starve.
SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Lol everything you create will now be stolen by Disney who will own the only organizations that can reach an audience.
Thanks for giving them free money forever just so you can spite people with actual talent.
gradual@lemmings.world 10 months ago
How is disney going to make its money without copyright and patent laws?
How will their movies sell if it’s legal for anyone to copy and redistribute them?
How will they make as much money off off merchandise if they have to legally compete with people who don’t hold copyrights to their IP?
The only “Lol” here is how proud you people are for being useful idiots. This is why things are the way they are.
Alteon@lemmy.world 10 months ago
This is a terrible take. Sure. There are issues with the system, but these laws protect smaller musicians and inventors from having their ideas stolen and profited upon by larger players.
Without patent laws, there’s no reason to ever “buyout” a design from an inventor, or for smaller songwriters to ever get paid again. A large company or musician could essentially steal your work and make money off of it, and you would get nothing for all of the time and effort that you put into it.
gradual@lemmings.world 10 months ago
Most musicians and inventors never make any significant amounts money off of their music or inventions.
There is an extremely small pool of creators who make an egregious amount of money off of their creations.
They would make less money overall if they did not have copyright and patent laws to help them. It’s sad watching you people go to bat for laws that exist solely to make rich people richer, but it’s why you’re average.
mechoman444@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Lol says the guy that’s probably going to pirate GTA 6.
And how do you propose people you claim will continue to create be compensated for their work when one of those much bigger corporations you seem to hate simply steal their work and profit off of it?
gradual@lemmings.world 10 months ago
Things like rent won’t be so expensive because landlords will have less of an excuse to charge customers more money. So, in essence you’re not even arguing for compensating creators for their work; you’re arguing for compensating their feudal lords.
How are corporations going to profit when there are no copyright and patent laws? Your cognitive dissonance is on full display here.