8 ms·

>Copyright exists to encourage progress in the arts and sciences. Not to enrich artists or scientists. Is impoverishing them supposed to encourage progress in

by pydry 6d ago

>Copyright exists to encourage progress in the arts and sciences. Not to enrich artists or scientists. Is impoverishing them supposed to encourage progress in the arts and sciences? Whatever it started out as (and I have my doubts it was ever a tool to help artists), it's now primarily a tool corporations use to milk creativity for profit and squash it where it might interfere with that profit.

mapontosevenths 6d ago
> Is impoverishing them supposed to encourage progress in the arts and sciences? No, but that needs new laws. Not an abuse of the old ones justified under the thinnest of pretenses. I don't think that folks stop to consider what bending copyright law into these weird shapes to meet their ends will do to other aspects of copyright. For example, sampling in music. How is that different from AI generated music? If anything AI uses LESS of any individual song. You can't just say "no derivative works." That would fully halt progress on many fronts.
- czpl 6d ago
  If a song was made purely of samples with no original input I'd argue it's in the same category. Maybe AI uses less of any individual song, but does AI make something actually original and transformative or is it just bits and pieces of all the things it learnt on (in simplified terms)? I think that's where the discussion lies.
  - mapontosevenths 6d ago
    Entirely new works are often created entirely from samples, and can be amazing. See "Frontier Psychiatrist" by The Avalanches for one example done entirely by humans. There are many others.
    - czpl 6d ago
      Amazing or not, that is not the discussion. LLM output can look amazing as well but that's not what I'm arguing about. Also with LLM's we'll reach a point when everything is made out of samples (metaphorically speaking), where do we fit original content then, or who will make it if it means it's going to be consumed by data centers immediately.
      - mapontosevenths 6d ago
        > Also with LLM's we'll reach a point when everything is made out of samples We reached that point with humans long ago. There's nothing new under the sun. Only remixes of dead peoples greatest hits. The pentatonic scale, for example, was not invented by the people who use it. Science and art would have to start over from scratch if you expect things to all be genuinely new from first principles. > who will make it if it means it's going to be consumed by data centers immediately People who enjoy making it.
        czpl 5d ago
        people who enjoy making it won't be able to afford to do it, alternatively only rich people will have means to do so. So I guess thats progress in some eyes
        mapontosevenths 5d ago
        > people who enjoy making it won't be able to afford to do it The demand for paintings did not disappear when photography was invented. Though many Luddites claimed it would. There were even those who wanted cameras outlawed to protect the artists livelihoods. Do you think we should have listened to those people? Is this situation different from that one?
- deleted 6d ago
  [deleted]
- NateEag 5d ago
  Sampling in music is long settled in the US - it is a copyright violation if not licensed, with the rare exception being cases where the sample is fair use: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_(music)#Legal_and_ethical_issues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_(music)#Legal_and_eth...

by pydry 6d ago

mapontosevenths 6d ago

> Is impoverishing them supposed to encourage progress in the arts and sciences? No, but that needs new laws. Not an abuse of the old ones justified under the thinnest of pretenses. I don't think that folks stop to consider what bending copyright law into these weird shapes to meet their ends will do to other aspects of copyright. For example, sampling in music. How is that different from AI generated music? If anything AI uses LESS of any individual song. You can't just say "no derivative works." That would fully halt progress on many fronts.

czpl 6d ago
If a song was made purely of samples with no original input I'd argue it's in the same category. Maybe AI uses less of any individual song, but does AI make something actually original and transformative or is it just bits and pieces of all the things it learnt on (in simplified terms)? I think that's where the discussion lies.
- mapontosevenths 6d ago
  Entirely new works are often created entirely from samples, and can be amazing. See "Frontier Psychiatrist" by The Avalanches for one example done entirely by humans. There are many others.
  - czpl 6d ago
    Amazing or not, that is not the discussion. LLM output can look amazing as well but that's not what I'm arguing about. Also with LLM's we'll reach a point when everything is made out of samples (metaphorically speaking), where do we fit original content then, or who will make it if it means it's going to be consumed by data centers immediately.
    - mapontosevenths 6d ago
      > Also with LLM's we'll reach a point when everything is made out of samples We reached that point with humans long ago. There's nothing new under the sun. Only remixes of dead peoples greatest hits. The pentatonic scale, for example, was not invented by the people who use it. Science and art would have to start over from scratch if you expect things to all be genuinely new from first principles. > who will make it if it means it's going to be consumed by data centers immediately People who enjoy making it.
      - czpl 5d ago
        people who enjoy making it won't be able to afford to do it, alternatively only rich people will have means to do so. So I guess thats progress in some eyes
        mapontosevenths 5d ago
        > people who enjoy making it won't be able to afford to do it The demand for paintings did not disappear when photography was invented. Though many Luddites claimed it would. There were even those who wanted cameras outlawed to protect the artists livelihoods. Do you think we should have listened to those people? Is this situation different from that one?
deleted 6d ago
[deleted]
NateEag 5d ago
Sampling in music is long settled in the US - it is a copyright violation if not licensed, with the rare exception being cases where the sample is fair use: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_(music)#Legal_and_ethical_issues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_(music)#Legal_and_eth...