Speaking as a creative who also has gotten paid for creative work, I’m a bit flustered at how brazenly people just wax poetic about the need for copyright law, especially when the creator or artist them selves are never really considered in the first place.

It’s not like yee olde piracy, which can even be ethical (like videogames being unpublished and almost erased from history), but a new form whereby small companies get to join large publishers in screwing over the standalone creator - except this time it isn’t by way of predatory contracts, but by sidestepping the creator and farming data from the creator to recreate the same style and form, which could’ve taken years - even decades to develop.

There’s also this idea that “all work is derivative anyways, nothing is original”, but that sidesteps the points of having worked to form a style over nigh decades and making a living off it when someone can just come along and undo all that with a press of a button.

If you’re libertarian and anarchist, be honest about that. Seems like there are a ton of tech bros who are libertarian and subversive about it to feel smort (the GPL is important btw). But at the end of the day the hidden agenda is clear: someone wants to benifit from somebody else’s work without paying them and find the mental and emotional justification to do so. This is bad, because they then justify taking food out of somebody’s mouth, which is par for the course in the current economic system.

It’s just more proof in the pudding that the capitalist system doesn’t work and will always screw the labourer in some way. It’s quite possible that only the most famous of artists will be making money directly off their work in the future, similarly to musicians.

As an aside, Jay-Z and Taylor Swift complaining about not getting enough money from Spotify is tone-deaf, because they know they get the bulk of that money anyways, even the money of some account that only plays the same small bands all the time, because of the payout model of Spotify. So the big ones will always, always be more “legitimate” than small artists and in that case they’ve probably already paid writers and such, but maybe not… looking at you, Jay-Z.

If the copyright cases get overwritten by the letigous lot known as corporate lawyers and they manage to finger holes into legislation that benifits both IP farmers and corporate interests, by way of models that train AI to be “far enough” away from the source material, we might see a lot of people loose their livelihoods.

Make it make sense, Beehaw =(

  • taanegl@beehaw.orgOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Why is it antiquated when we live in a world where you need to pay rent? And why pay for work when you can just digitally copy the work?

    What you say makes no sense. Like it could take you two decades to culminate a piece or body of work, just to have that taken away in one fell swoop. What incentive does one then have to work in arts and entrainment?

    Forget independent artists, because they will fade away into the Woodworks as everything of artistic merit will suddenly be purely product - and that is not how the greatest works or body of works have been created, despite what some upper management types might tell you.

    Now if you also then advocate for basic income or perhaps even some way to monetize non-copywrited work so I could pay rent… then I’m all ears.

    But there’s also the sneaking suspission that most people just wanna farm AI art and sell it off at the expense of independent artists, like the stupidly commodified property market makes more renters than buyers, and that is a degenerate world driven by egoism we could clean up quite nicely with some well placed nukes… let the lizards take a stab at becoming higher reasoning beings instead.

    Also, public domain has no requirement to contribute back. For that we have MIT and BSD license, supposed “copyright” licenses, whereas GNU is copy-left - because it demands contribution back… which is also why Microsoft, Google and Apple hate the GPL… but yeah, public domain is also awesome - and the scope that AI farmers should stick to.

    • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Why is it antiquated when we live in a world where you need to pay rent?

      the statute of anne had nothing to do with paying people’s rent: it was to stop the printers in london from breaking each others’ knees. that’s not a real threat any more so, yea, it’s totally antiquated.

      people share stories, songs, recipes, and tools. legally preventing people from sharing is inhumane.

    • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      What incentive does one then have to work in arts and entrainment?

      i forgot no one made artistic works or put on performances before copyright.

      oh, wait, the whole reason the statute of ann was written was because people were buying shakespeare’s plays from various publishers.

    • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Now if you also then advocate for basic income or perhaps even some way to monetize non-copywrited work so I could pay rent… then I’m all ears.

      i advocate for the abolition of private property. you should not be paying rent.

    • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      or perhaps even some way to monetize non-copywrited work so I could pay ren

      many artists across the centuries have found success in the patronage model.

    • SkepticElliptic@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Why is it antiquated when we live in a world where you need to pay rent? And why pay for work when you can just digitally copy the work?

      You wouldn’t download a house.

    • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Microsoft, Google and Apple hate the GPL

      you can’t think they’d like my vision of the world any more than they like the gpl.

    • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      public domain has no requirement to contribute back

      i’m aware of that. i hope for a world where the gpl is unenforceable because copyright is put where it belongs: in the wastepaper basket of history.