[deleted]
Paul McCartney and Dua Lipa among artists urging British Prime Minister Starmer to rethink his AI copyright plans
Submitted 1 month ago by dwazou@lemm.ee to technology@lemmy.world
Comments
throwawayacc0430@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
AtariDump@lemmy.world 1 month ago
zonnewin@feddit.nl 1 month ago
But downloading and illegally using that font is okay?
Takios@discuss.tchncs.de 1 month ago
hello yes I’m an ai company. let me torrent all the things pls thank you
Scrollone@feddit.it 1 month 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 1 month 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 1 month 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.
phoenixz@lemmy.ca 1 month ago
Yeah no, only a select few special Ai companies, of course
potpotato@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
My mind is AI and I need this content to train it.
ferric_carcinization@lemmy.ml 5 weeks ago
I’m not sure if my brain counts as artificial, but with all the microplastics, it sure ain’t organic.
zephorah@lemm.ee 1 month ago
It’s like the goal is to bleed culture from humanity. Corporate is so keep on the $$$ they’re willing to sacrifice culture to it.
I’ll bet corporate gets to keep their copyrights.
orclev@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Absolute fastest way to kill this shit? Feed the entire Disney catalog in and start producing knockoff Disney movies. Disney would kill this so fast.
Thedogdrinkscoffee@lemmy.ca 1 month ago
With a mercenary death squad, probably.
TachyonTele@lemm.ee 1 month ago
That’s exactly what i was just thinking.
Where’s Disney in all of this?refurbishedrefurbisher@lemmy.sdf.org 1 month ago
Or Nintendo.
Grimy@lemmy.world 1 month ago
The record companies already have all the data and all the rights. Petitions like these are meant to rig the game in their favor, so we get the official Warner Music AI at a high price point with licensing fees, and anything open source is deemed illegal and cant be used in products.
If you’re on the side that stands with Disney, you are probably on the wrong one.
deathbird@mander.xyz 5 weeks 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!
arararagi@ani.social 5 weeks ago
If AI companies can pirate, so can individuals.
M0oP0o@mander.xyz 5 weeks ago
You know I am somewhat of a large language model myself.
Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 5 weeks ago
At this rate we will get access to more rights if we can figure out a way to legally classify ourselves as AI.
AA5B@lemmy.world 5 weeks 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 5 weeks 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 5 weeks 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.
jsomae@lemmy.ml 1 month ago
Can the rest of us please use copyrighted material without permission?
lustyargonian@lemm.ee 1 month ago
As long as you use AI to generate it
nodiratime@lemmy.world 1 month ago
The AI just gives you a 1:1 copy of it’s training data, which is the material. Viola.
drmoose@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Yes.
FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 1 month ago
You already likely do. Every book you read and learned from is copyrighted material. Every video you watch on YouTube and learned from is copyrighted material.
jsomae@lemmy.ml 1 month ago
By “use” I actually meant “reproduce portions of”
toastmeister@lemmy.ca 1 month ago
God I hope so.
deathbird@mander.xyz 5 weeks 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 😞
Zero22xx@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 month ago
So did this UK “centre-left” party turn out to be a Trojan horse or what? They’ve dismantled trans rights. They plan on using AI thought police to ‘predict’ future crimes and criminals. And now they want multibillion corporations to have free access to anyone’s work without compensation.
If I hadn’t looked this political party up on Wikipedia, by this point I would be assuming that they’re a bunch of conservative wankers on Elon Musk’s payroll.
Lodespawn@aussie.zone 1 month ago
Is anyone calling UK Labour centre-left? I would have thought theyd be sitting just inside the lower right quadrant of the political compass, they might have been centre left when Corbyn was the leader but that was a while ago and Starmer isn’t that kinda guy.
Zero22xx@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 month ago
Wait, so in all these years that Europeans have been making fun of dumb Americans for having a two party system, and for having no real left wing options, the UK has been basically the same?
Lyra_Lycan@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 month ago
I looked up the history of UK Parliament a while ago. Since conception there have only ever been two parties in charge: Conservative (used to be called Liberal) and Labour. They are pretty much identical in terms of actual change.
The only show of promise is that the Green Party have secured a massive increase in power, and there might actually be a chance of a difference in the next decade.
punksnotdead@slrpnk.net 1 month ago
Shares of the vote in general elections since 1832 received by Conservatives[note 1] (blue), Liberals/Liberal Democrats[note 2] (orange), Labour (red) and others (grey)[1][2][3]
The Conservatives forming from a split in the Liberal party doesn’t mean they’re the same thing.
Labour and Liberal Democrats are two very different parties. Or at least they used to be, until New Labour became a thing…
Our politics are bad, FPTP is bad, but we’re not a 2 party system entirely. The Lib Dems, Greens, SNP, and Reform all manage to have a say in politics and how things are done. They all influence Labour and the Conservatives.
vogo13@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
Can we just shut the fuck up about this fantasy “centre-left” already? There has not been a centre in a very long time, let alone a left. Regardless far-left or far-right, only options are authoritarian and not libertarian. Go compare Switzerland to enlighten yourself.
HighFructoseLowStand@lemm.ee 5 weeks 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 5 weeks ago
AI doesn’t copy things anymore than a person copies them by attending a concert or museum.
Jax@sh.itjust.works 5 weeks ago
This is such a bizarre rejection of reality
mechoman444@lemmy.world 5 weeks 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.
SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
You need to learn how your god functions.
If it needs training data then it is effectively copying the training data.
jsomae@lemmy.ml 5 weeks ago
why do you say AI is a universally regarded negative?
HighFructoseLowStand@lemm.ee 5 weeks ago
Because overall people don’t like it, particularly when it comes to creating “art.”
Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee 5 weeks ago
Because pretty much nobody wants it or likes it.
bufalo1973@lemm.ee 5 weeks 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.
rottingleaf@lemmy.world 1 month 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.
FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 1 month ago
You’re talking about illegally acquiring content, which isn’t the same as training AI off legally acquired/viewed content.
rottingleaf@lemmy.world 1 month ago
I’m not talking about legally\illegally, I’m talking about rightfully\unrightfully , the difference is in under whose control the category line is.
thewedtdeservedit@lemmy.cafe 5 weeks ago
I actually can torrent lmao.
the_q@lemm.ee 1 month ago
I mean they were trained on copyrighted material and nothing has been done about that so…
DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 1 month ago
So abolish copyright law entirely instead of only allowing theft when capitalists do it.
Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee 1 month 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?
thewedtdeservedit@lemmy.cafe 1 month ago
Exactly. Paul Mc Cartney have been trained on copyrighted material and should give his money back to the majors
SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.world 1 month ago
On the other hand copyright laws have been extended to insane time lengths.
seeigel@feddit.org 1 month ago
It’s never the grandkits. The Beatles sold the rights to their songs.
minoscopede@lemmy.world 1 month ago
It only seems to make a difference when the rich ones complain.
StonerCowboy@lemm.ee 1 month ago
How funny this is gonna get when AI copyrights Nintendo stuff. Ah man I got my popcorn ready.
CriticalMiss@lemmy.world 1 month ago
They’re not gonna do anything about it for the same reason any other litigious company hasn’t done anything thus far. They’re looking to benefit from AI by cutting costs. If the tech wasn’t beneficiary to these big tech conglomerates they would’ve already sued their asses to oblivion, but since they do care they’ll let AI train on their copyrighted material.
perviouslyiner@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
“Generate a movie in the style of star wars”
wosat@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Thought experiment: What if AI companies were allowed to use copyrighted material for free as long as they release their models to the public? Want to keep your model private? Pay up. Similar to the GPL.
boramalper@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Fun fact: Copyright is also the basis on which you enforce copyleft provisions such as the those in GPL. In a world without copyright, there are no software licenses yet alone copyleft.
I know it’s very challenging for “this community” (FOSS users & developers let’s say) because a significant number of them also support shadow libraries such as Sci-Hub and Library Genesis and Anna’s Archive so how do we reconcile “copyleft (therefore copyright) good” with “copyright bad”?
I don’t have a clear answer yet but maybe the difference is as simple as violating copyright for personal purposes vs business purposes? Anyway…
CosmicGiraffe@lemmy.world 1 month ago
The GPL uses copyright because it’s the legal mechanism available to enforce the principles that the GPL wants to enforce. It’s entirely consistent to believe that copyright shouldn’t exist while also believing that a law should exist to allow/enforce the principles of the GPL.
drmoose@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Without copyright there would be no need for copyleft. Its right there in the name.
General_Effort@lemmy.world 1 month ago
The copyright industry would never accept that. Where’s the money for them?
catloaf@lemm.ee 1 month ago
It still devalues the work of individual creators.
thewedtdeservedit@lemmy.cafe 5 weeks ago
It devalues universal share value yea
reksas@sopuli.xyz 1 month ago
should start up our own ai company anyone is free to join
Agent641@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
I identify as an AI company.
reksas@sopuli.xyz 5 weeks 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 1 month ago
No more ads on youtube
echodot@feddit.uk 1 month ago
Oh good I see Labour are dealing with the real issues in society.
100_kg_90_de_belin@feddit.it 5 weeks ago
Modern Labour and not giving a fuck about workers, name a more iconic duo.
General_Effort@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Ahh. Paul McCartney. Looks like Lemmy has finally found a billionaire it likes.
I’m sure it is The Beatles’ activism for social change that won people over. Who could forget their great protest song “The Taxman”, bravely taking a stand against the 95% tax rate. Truly, the 60ies were a time of liberation.
ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 1 month ago
I’d rather people not profiting off copyrighted work be permitted than those who profit off it
cygnus@lemmy.ca 1 month ago
Pretty funny that Dua Lipa is so opposed to this when her entire catalogue sounds like blatant ripoffs of other people’s music.
RamblingPanda@lemmynsfw.com 1 month ago
I should create an AI start up and torrent all the content.
FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 1 month 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.
Grimy@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Please, save the copyright industry! If using these for AI isnt made ridiculously expensive, we will never be able to build a proper monopoly on top of this tech!
They get popular artists to sign these things but its the record companies (all three of them) that are really behind this.
HawlSera@lemm.ee 5 weeks ago
Disband Copyright
AA5B@lemmy.world 5 weeks 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?
drmoose@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Good, fuck copyright these counts have enough money already.
Gluca23@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Greed have no age.
hopesdead@startrek.website 1 month ago
Says the dude who completed a song using AI.
LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 5 weeks 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.
K3zi4@lemmy.world 1 month ago
In theory, could you then just register as an AI company and pirate anything?
pdxfed@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Well no, just the largest ones who can pay some fine or have nearly endless legal funds to discourage challenges to their practice, this bring a form of a pretend business moat. The average company won’t be able to and will get shredded.
CosmoNova@lemmy.world 1 month ago
What fine? I thought this new law allows it. Or is it one of those instances where training your AI on copyrighted material and distributing it is fine but actually sourcing it isn‘t so you can‘t legally create a model but also nobody can do anything if you have and use it? That sounds legally very messy.
drmoose@lemmy.world 1 month ago
You can already just pirate anything. In fact, downloading copyrighted content is not illegal in most countries just distributing is.
rivalary@lemmy.ca 5 weeks ago
That would be hilarious if someone made a website showing how they are using pirated Nintendo games (complete with screenshots of the games, etc) to show how they are “training” their AI just to watch Nintendo freak out.