Training data can be used "regardless of whether it is for non-profit or commercial purposes, whether it is an act other than reproduction, or whether it is content obtained from illegal sites or otherwise."
I completely disagree. The vast majority of people won’t be using the open source tools unless the more popular ones become open source (which I don’t think is likely). Also, a tool being open source doesn’t mean it’s allowed to trample over an artist’s rights to their work.
They’ll just pay us artists peanuts if anything at all, and use large platforms like Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Artstation, and others who can change the terms of service to say any artist allows their uploaded art to be used for AI training - with an opt out hidden deep in the preferences if we’re lucky.
This is going to happen anyway. Copyright law has to catch up and protect against this, just because they put it in their terms of service, doesn’t mean it can’t be legislated against.
This was the whole problem with OpenAI anyway. They decided to use the internet as their own personal dataset and are now charging for it.
We should give a shit about everyone’s rights to put food on the table. Compassion can be exhausting but it’s important to recognise that someone else’s problem might be yours one day and you’d wish someone was there to help you.
I get where you’re coming from, but I don’t think even more private property is the answer here. This is ultimately a question of economics - we don’t like that a) we’re being put out of jobs, and b) it’s being done without our consent / anything in return. These are problems that we can address without throwing even more monopolosation power into the equation, which is what IP is all about - giving artists a monopoly over their own content, which mostly benefits large media corporations, not independent artists.
I’d much rather we tackled the problem of automation taking our jobs in a more heads on manner via something like UBI or negative income taxes, rather than a one-off solution like even more copyright that only really serves to slow this inevitability down. You can regulate AI in as many ways as you want, but that’s adding a ton of meaningless friction to getting stuff done (e.g. you’d have to prove your art wasn’t made by AI somehow) when the much easier and more effective solution is something like UBI.
The consent question is something that needs a bit more of a radical solution - like democratising work, something that Finland has done to their grocery stores, the biggest grocery chains are democratically owned and run by the members (consumer coops). We’ll probably get to something like that on a large scale… eventually - but I think it’s probably a bigger hurdle than UBI. Then you’d be able to vote on what ways an organisation operates, including if or how it builds AI data sets.
I appreciate this take, especially when applying copyright in the manner being proposed extends the already ambiguous grey area of “fair use”, which is most often used against artists.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.
I completely disagree. The vast majority of people won’t be using the open source tools unless the more popular ones become open source (which I don’t think is likely). Also, a tool being open source doesn’t mean it’s allowed to trample over an artist’s rights to their work.
This is going to happen anyway. Copyright law has to catch up and protect against this, just because they put it in their terms of service, doesn’t mean it can’t be legislated against.
This was the whole problem with OpenAI anyway. They decided to use the internet as their own personal dataset and are now charging for it.
Who gives a shit about artists rights? We need to move on with the progress like we always have.
This is a terrible take. Maybe someday your livelihood will be challenged by technology and you’ll get to see why.
They can get a job or figure out funding like everybody else
We should give a shit about everyone’s rights to put food on the table. Compassion can be exhausting but it’s important to recognise that someone else’s problem might be yours one day and you’d wish someone was there to help you.
I get where you’re coming from, but I don’t think even more private property is the answer here. This is ultimately a question of economics - we don’t like that a) we’re being put out of jobs, and b) it’s being done without our consent / anything in return. These are problems that we can address without throwing even more monopolosation power into the equation, which is what IP is all about - giving artists a monopoly over their own content, which mostly benefits large media corporations, not independent artists.
I’d much rather we tackled the problem of automation taking our jobs in a more heads on manner via something like UBI or negative income taxes, rather than a one-off solution like even more copyright that only really serves to slow this inevitability down. You can regulate AI in as many ways as you want, but that’s adding a ton of meaningless friction to getting stuff done (e.g. you’d have to prove your art wasn’t made by AI somehow) when the much easier and more effective solution is something like UBI.
The consent question is something that needs a bit more of a radical solution - like democratising work, something that Finland has done to their grocery stores, the biggest grocery chains are democratically owned and run by the members (consumer coops). We’ll probably get to something like that on a large scale… eventually - but I think it’s probably a bigger hurdle than UBI. Then you’d be able to vote on what ways an organisation operates, including if or how it builds AI data sets.
I appreciate this take, especially when applying copyright in the manner being proposed extends the already ambiguous grey area of “fair use”, which is most often used against artists.