Administered by:
I wonder if the whole #AI thing will finally convince artists that modern #copyright regime was never meant to protect *them*.
It was meant to protect the middlemen. The Amazons, the Spotifies, the Sonys, the Disneys. The film studios, the publishing houses.
Now the middlemen figured out they own basically all of art, and that they can just train a computer on that, to replace artists with a piece of software.
And then stop paying artists even the pittance they were being paid so far.
@rysiek@mstdn.socialCourtney Love hit the nail on the head years and years ago:
https://www.gerryhemingway.com/piracy
> Today I want to talk about piracy and music. What is piracy? Piracy is the act of stealing an artist's work without any intention of paying for it. I'm not talking about Napster-type software. I'm talking about major label recording contracts.
Now the same companies that had cried "protect the artists!" to extend copyright over and over again are salivating at the thought of replacing artists with software.
Artists now realize they had signed the rights to their own work over to middlemen, who use that very work to try replacing them.
When they signed these contracts, often years ago, there was no talk of "AIs" able to "generate content". That was not even on the horizon.
"We have altered the deal. Pray we don't alter it any further."
Would they have signed these contracts if that was clearly stated in the terms? Well, if the WGA strike is any indication, I'd wager a bet the answer is "no".
I hope this becomes a wake-up call to all #artists, to all creative people out there — a wake-up call not just about #AI and automatically generated content, but also, and more importantly, about how urgently we need solid #copyright reform.
We had been needing it for decades, in fact.
#Art is not supposed to be hoarded by Disneys or Sonys, not supposed to be locked in corporate vaults. Art is more than just means of "maximizaing shareholder value".
#Artists cannot be replaced by some software. But it will take corporate execs a few years to learn it the hard way.
Meanwhile, artists will be hurting, bad. They will need our support — they always did!
So support them directly, if you can. Boost their toots on here, buy their merch, donate to them via whatever means they accept, or just send in a good word.
As this seems to be blowing up, a call to #art: this is now a "share your art" thread. I shall boost, if alt-text is provided. 
@rysiek fuck record companies or whatever they call themselves now they've fucking everybody for years charging 15 bucks for s record that cost them a dollar to make and just bad intentions from the beginning of time... fuck em...
@Springhead @rysiek
That would be Lesson 10.
"Who Killed Bambi?"
https://youtu.be/XNe20XOXd8Y
@rysiek OTOH, we live in a neoliberal society, where shareholder value is the only quantifiable metric and everything else trickles down from that, “I guess”, and the ratchet only turns one way.
@acb society is what we make of it. I have zero patience for convenient fatalism of the "well we can't really do anything can we" kind.
@rysiek copyright was originally designed to encourage artists to create more. Now it doesn't do that very well. It hasn't for a while. There's still a lot of creating because people don't just create for money. How are you proposing it be fixed?
@DanielTuttle @rysiek There is already the concept of "authors moral rights"; extend that. You use someones work/performance to derive a wholly new version, they've got the right to prohibit that because it's not them performing- unless they give specific consent (for payment if that is their condition). And all studios etc generating new works need the paperwork to prove consent, just like porn studios need proof of age for all their performers.
@HighlandLawyer @rysiek right, but AI work is derivative
@DanielTuttle @rysiek Precisely, so any business creating it ought to be obliged to have the consent of the original author/artist/performer before being able to release it
@HighlandLawyer @rysiek copyright law allows derivative works
@DanielTuttle as far as I understand AI companies are using "data-mining exception" in the EU to go around copyright and claim AI-generated works are not to be treated as derivative works.
Disclosure, I lobbied *for* that exception, because it is crucial for things like science, investigative journalism, etc. It was never meant to be used in a way that AI companies use it (that is, to create new works of the same order, so to speak), and I believe this needs to be fixed ASAP.
@DanielTuttle @rysiek Copyright law reserves the authority to make adaptations, arrangement, & alterations of literary or artistic works to the author (Berne Convention Art 12).
(Art 14(2) reserves rights to original author even when a cinematic version has been created)
IOW, derivative works require permission of the original works copyright owner.
@DanielTuttle obviously there is not going to be a silver bullet.
Regarding AI, making clear these are derivative works would be a good step. Regarding the broader issue, I would want to see Disney, Sony, Amazon et al being treated like the oligopolists they are, with some anti-trust action happening.
I would like to see the concept of "moral rights", in some form, having a bit more weight.
The incentives and risks are currently completely upside-down. More power needed for the artists.
@DanielTuttle ideas like Philippe Aigrain's (from "Culture and the Economy in the Internet Age") are definitely worth considering.
I need to read R. Giblin's and C. Doctorow's "Chokepoint Capitalism" finally. From what I heard (including on a lecture by them), there are some concrete ideas there.
But the bottom line is: we need a different model, as the current model of making sure artists get paid is being completely played by a few oligopolists.
I do wonder what your thoughts are, though!
@rysiek Complicated. I personally don't think AI is infringing on anyone's copyright. It's remixing and to such a fine degree it's practically derivative. IMHO: all art is derivative.
Speaking within the constraints of capitalism: If AI threatens someone's art, their art probably isn't commercially viable. I know that's a loaded statement but you know.
@rysiek More pragmatically: copyright laws will only be updated to benefit The Mouse. It will not be favorable to independent artists, unfortunately. Copyright laws have evolved to be against their original intent already, in the name of corporate ownership.
@DanielTuttle based on the history of the Statute of Anne, arguably the first copyright law on this green Earth, I would argue that the original intent was always the same: protecting the middlemen, and using artists' rights as a convenient excuse.
I do believe, however, that laws are what we make of them, and if artists decided they won't take it anymore and denied the middlemen that excuse, copyright could be reformed in ways useful and helpful to independent artists.
@rysiek It's hard to imagine any modern governments prioritizing individuals over giant corporations
“We live in capitalism. Its power seems inescapable. So did the divine right of kings. Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings. Resistance and change often begin in art, and very often in our art, the art of words.”
I know you must have seen this quote from Ursula K. Le Guin, but it just fits too well here for me not to quote her.
@rysiek I don't think technology should be throttled to save jobs, either. That could be part of a bigger "why capitalism sucks" discussion.
@DanielTuttle capitalism does suck.
Technology is not throttled, it's regulated. We can steer it towards being useful and helpful and equitable, or we can steer it towards being outright dystopian. Allowing one is "throttling" the other, and vice-versa.
"Technology is neither good nor bad, nor is it neutral."
We can and should regulate it and steer it in ways beneficial to the society at large, not just the lucky few.
@rysiek I mean, I figure we are within a decade of skynet anyway 
@DanielTuttle not even close. As much as used-tech salesmen like Sam Altman want us to believe, GPT-4 is nowhere near being intelligent in any meaningful sense. Don't get distracted by the hype.
Here's a great podcast episode about this that cuts right through the bull:
https://thedigradio.com/podcast/ai-hype-machine-w-meredith-whittaker-ed-ongweso-and-sarah-west/
@rysiek oh I know. But tech has a way of getting better exponentially. And everyone ignores Asimov''s rules, tsk tsk
@DanielTuttle GPT-4 is eight GPT-3s in a trenchcoat:
https://pub.towardsai.net/gpt-4-8-models-in-one-the-secret-is-out-e3d16fd1eee0
It's not getting better exponentially, they've hit a wall. Google is worried that smaller, FLOSS models are going to eat their cake:
https://www.theverge.com/2023/7/10/23790132/google-memo-moat-ai-leak-demis-hassabis
This tech is simply not going to create SkyNet, full stop. They do want us to believe it might, though, so that they can scare lawmakers to regulate the competition away!
Regarding Asimov's rules: capital doesn't care about any rules that are not enforced. 
@rysiek They'll make their own rules and it'll be about not destroying property or value
@DanielTuttle you know, I simply do not find this kind of fatalism interesting nor useful.
If you're only interested in complaining about how screwed we all are and pointing out nothing can be done, you do you, but I'll bow out of this conversation then. Have a good one! 
@rysiek I don't think we're all screwed. I was mostly making a joke but it's not a huge exaggeration. A lot of current legislation places a higher value on property and commerce than lives. That isn't being fatalistic, that's what actually happens.
I think there are solutions but they require a lot of perspective realignment. We can discuss ideals all we want but there are realities behind law as they exist. And copyright law has unequivocally become more and more friendly to The Mouse, et al
@rysiek Fuck the copyright maximalists & publishing cartels, #AbolishCopyright.
@lispi314 I am not entirely on-board with the idea of abolishing copyright. I do believe it needs serious, deep reform, but abolishing it outright would have too many unintended consequences, in my opinion.
First and foremost, there would need to immediately be an alternative available for artists to be able to make a living. Copyright is broken, but it still allows a lot of artists to get paid.
Also, all of the copyleft software licenses would become unenforceable. To me, that's a big deal.
@rysiek On that first part, I think Patricia Taxxon (https://www.youtube.com/@Patricia_Taxxon/search?query=The%20Golden%20Calf) has a generally good idea of a model that actually makes sense & would work.
Not mentioned in her argument directly would be the importance of labor rights & organization in achieving it.
> Also, all of the copyleft software licenses would become unenforceable. To me, that's a big deal.
Likewise though would become any litigation for liberating software or info.
No cleanroom reverse-engineering nonsense any longer.
@lispi314 I remain unconvinced that the risk here is worth it. Which is not to say that it most definitely is not, I do not have the monopoly on truth, of course.
@ DVS Online @rysiek thanks for the opportunity to share. https://mastodon.art/@Temrin/110698062059981592
@rysiek If you consider Audiobook Narrators to be artists and audiobooks to be art (I do, honestly, on both counts), then here is a link to my catalogue of high heat audiobooks:
https://adaraastin.ck.page/87de3a4c9f
Plus a bonus link to a collection of NSFW audiobook titles that are available for a limited time only:
https://smutlandia.com/@AdaraAstin/110679361533854272
#Art #SupportArtists #Audiobook #AudioFiction #Romance #Romancelandia #Erotica #EroticRomance @audiobooks @AudioFiction @bookstodon @romancelandia @smutstodon
@AdaraAstin I absolutely do consider audiobooks art and audiobook narrators artists. Many books get a completely new shine, new depth, in an audiobook version!
@audiobooks @AudioFiction @bookstodon @romancelandia @smutstodon
@rysiek yeah. so did Steve Albini in his famous "The problem with music".
Courtney Love, Steve Albini, ( /me reminisce of Negativland too and a few more), they laid it bare in front of us
@rysiek That reminded me of this image
