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.
> 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.
@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
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".
@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...
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".
@rysiek OTOH, we live in a neoliberal society, where shareholder value is the only quantifiable metric and everything else trickle down from that, “I guess”, and the ratchet only turns one way.
#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 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.
@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
@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 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.
@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.
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.
@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.
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. 🤷♀️
@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! :blobcatcoffee:
@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 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.
“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.
@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/) 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.
@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:
@AdaraAstin I absolutely do consider audiobooks art and audiobook narrators artists. Many books get a completely new shine, new depth, in an audiobook version!
@rysiek which explains why when AI started ripping off every human work that was supposed to be protected by copyright laws, none of the media giants sued the tech companies. Not SONY, ASCAP, BMI or the usual suspects. Yet when kids downloaded content on BitTorrent, they were thrown in jail and fined millions for ‘copyright infringement.’
I'm a writer & #editor. I've worked both freelance & in traditional #publishing. The system initially worked very well for #writers, & was well worth their portion of the pie:
Publishers screened out bad writing, mentored less experienced writers to improve.
Several people would edit each book/short story (not cheap).
In the days before internet, you NEEDED to get onto shelves to get noticed. Publishers were able to provide that access & the marketing. (This was NOT cheap to do. Writers could not afford that level of marketing. They also didn't know who could help them or how; publishers had that industry knowledge & networking.)
Copyright protection & lawyering up for libel suits, etc. would also be provided free to the author, as needed.
Agents (another middleman) would (and still do) provide excellent contract negotiations (not only btwn #authors & publishers, but for movie rights, sequel issues, etc.)
Before #PrintOnDemand#POD and online book sales, a book run was generally 10K copies or more. Someone had to organize & oversee the logistics of moving them all to stores & maintaining stock at the point of sale. Plus, 10K copies requires a lot more storage space than you would think. That's also another cost.
If you were lucky & your book sold more than 10K, another print run were another cost. Translations & international sales meant more expenses.
Back then, the only form of real "self-publish" was #VantiyPress, which was as much of a ripoff and waste of money then as it is today.
Basically, it's easy to be comfortable in this modern era and think that things have always been as they are now, that the #arts were always something that #artists could do on their own and pay the rent. It's easy for younger people to think that the middlemen were always unnecessary, but that's not true.
3/ I do think that we are seeing a new paradigm shift in how things are done.
For too long, we've been trying to govern the internet using 18th Century methods, but it's a square peg that doesn't fit into that old round hole. We've been trying to make it work, and getting by with it mostly, but also setting ourselves up for a disaster (especially with topics like #Copyright).
But I also think that ideas like #TheFediverse and modern #SelfPublishing are allowing #artists to flip things. They are allowing "the Common Man" (and woman) to put their art on the market without the need for the middlemen anymore, and empowering more independent voices. They are giving #artists and #writers a way around the corporate gatekeepers.
@rysiek
4/
To believe that #AI will merely be a harmless and purely benevolent tool for everyone is naive, imo-- especially for those in #writing and #publishing.
The #automobile revolutionized the world. In the process, it also put a lot of blacksmiths out of work, and sent a lot of horses to glue factories & slaughterhouses.
I see my #editorial career as being like a blacksmith in the age of #AI. It won't be a common job in the future, & the few who do it will have a very different job description & use very different tools than I ever have. Software like #Grammarly & #ChatGPT can already do much of the work I used to do-- not as well as a human right now, but it won't be long until they can reliably replace #editors.
But once again, we'll be handing our #art over to corporations-- the same oligarchs who plowed over our #copyrights to train their AI will control the software that they'll make us reliant on.
@AnneTheWriter1 thank you for sharing your perspective. As I read it, we mostly vehemently agree. :blobcatcoffee:
Though some seem to read my thread as advocating for completely abolishing copyright, I did not say that.
My livelihood also depends on copyright, even if I am in a completely different line of work. And tools that I use and make — mostly free/open-source software — rely on it as far as enforcement of libre licensing is concerned, for example.
@AnneTheWriter1 I agree that the Internet changed things dramatically.
And I cannot even tell you how strongly I agree with this sentiment:
> For too long, we've been trying to govern the internet using 18th Century methods, but it's a square peg that doesn't fit into that old round hole.
This hits the nail on the head. That's why I am talking about copyright reform. And if I read what you wrote correctly you seem to agree to some extent?
I do also see some hope in self publishing and such.
We do indeed agree on much of what you had in your original post.
One point I wanted to make was that in earlier days, producers and middlemen definitely earned their pay, in #publishing and most everywhere that #creators could make money. There were a lot of hands dipping into every creative project.
But while I think #technology has changed a lot of aspects of every creative industry, I think there's still a place for those middlemen-- not every creator can or wishes to do everything on their own.
I also wanted to point out that big data and corporations have taken more and more away from creators in many fields, while offering less and less of the profits and of the rights to their own creations. And now, they are controlling the very tech that creators will soon become dependant upon.
(I tend to be verbose sometimes. My apologies if I was going on too long.)
> One point I wanted to make was that in earlier days, producers and middlemen definitely earned their pay
No question about that.
> not every creator can or wishes to do everything on their own.
Nor about that.
My point is that the power structures that current copyright regime sets up harm artists and prop up the middlemen to a point where artists struggle to make a living.
And that "the purpose of the system is what it does".
@rysiek
My worry is that the common person creator cannot get results from Congress which would favor the creators, and that the big corporations will set the rules-- in their favor, of course.
I don't know of any system that could be put in place which would both protect from Big Data scraping and over-profitting, while also allowing creators to make a living in an era of #AI.
I guess I just don't hold out much hope that any actual changes would not simply make things worse.😞
@AnneTheWriter1 I've been involved in lobbying in public interest (as an activist) within the EU many times over the last decade or so, and more often than not the outcomes were not all bad.
Artists, writers, creative folk in general are a force of nature. If they choose to take on Big Tech and Big Content, Big Tech and Big Content will fall.
Lobbying is all about creating a narrative. Who in the room knows how to create a compelling one better, some corporate drones, or actual writers?..
@weirdwriter@rysiek
One of the big problems we're setting ourselves up for is by letting the software companies and #BigData govern themselves. That's the stupidest decision ever made, and BOTH parties are being too cowardly and/or corrupt to stand up to Zuckerberg, Google, Musk, etc. (Or maybe all the old men in DC are just too ignorant about #technology to recognize the iceberg they're steering us into.)
They're allowing Big Data to hide behind the excuse of " #FreeSpeech" and not considering the inevitable impact this will have not only on any single nation or demographic, but on the world at large.
We need fast-thinking government able to steer a speeding powerboat between the twin icebergs of #ClimateChange and #AI, but we're stuck with a lot of turtles and sloths at the helm.
@weirdwriter I can assure you I am aware that self-published writers exist, and that they like copyright, the wannabe enlightened leftist that I am (as you so delightfully put it). I think you missed a chance to call me a techbro there, by the way!
As I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, my livelihood also relies on copyright. Things I care about, like copyleft and FLOSS, rely on copyright. You seem to think I am advocating for completely abolishing copyright, which I am not.
@weirdwriter regarding AI, the important part here is the "data-mining exception" in the EU Copyright Directive.
That's, as far as I understand, the loophole AI companies are using in the EU to claim that AI-generated works are not derivative works. It was never meant to be used this way.
Fixing that — without screwing up the scientific community and others who rely on this exception to do things it was meant to enable them to do — would be a tangible, important step here.
@weirdwriter and yes, Big Tech and our tech infrastructure in general needs to be much better regulated. That is without a doubt a huge part of the problem.
So let me sum it up:
we seem to agree artists do not deserve the shitty treatment they are getting in the current system;
we seem to agree copyright reform is needed;
we seem to agree AI is a problem;
we seem to agree that the tech sector needs to be regulated.
@rysiek
Yup. I don’t trust the internet with my art, and rarely share it online anymore.
I used to share ages ago on Facebook when I was on there, but found my work showing up without proper credit.
For some reason people often expect artists (of all kinds) to work for free, yet no other profession is expected to do that. 🤯 I work hard on my art. It’s taken me decades to get where I’m at. So no, I’m not giving it away like candy on Halloween.
Worshipful Company of Stationers pushed for it (and got it) after the previous Licensing Act expired — with authors strongly advocating for it being allowed to expire, in fact.
@rysiek We knew back in the Napster days that pirates were a scapegoat to distract everyone from noticing who it really is who just wants to steal artists' work and not pay them for it. But they've gotten a lot more brazen about it — not just the AI stuff but the recent trend of studios removing shows from their streaming sites, leaving no legal means of watching them (or, hypothetically, compensating the artists, though they mostly don't get residuals for streaming anyway).
@rysiek 100%. In the long term the best outcome for artists will be UBI and abolishing copyright altogether. UBI will provide a safety net for you, and other people will have more disposable income to further support you. Upholding the copyright regime will only mean you will be hired for as long as you’re needed to train the machine, and then you’ll be let go owning nothing at all. We’re reaching the logical end point of monetising art through capitalism. Bureaucracy won’t save us.
Artists need to get paid. (Otherwise they starve in a garret.) The only way to get paid is through middlemen. (Ask anybody into, say, being their own ebook publisher how that's working out.)
Talking about copyright reform is kinda pointless, because it's one of many tools used to control where the profit accrues. What's needed is a reliable means of paying the artist into which a middleman cannot intrude.
@rysiek What's needed isn't copyright reform but using the coercive power of the state to remove middlemen from the process.
Since middlemen do provide useful services to the art-consuming public, this isn't trivial, but it's not that hard, either.
For electronic media, it's fairly obvious that you could use the library system and pay artists based on public engagement. (And write laws forbidding contracts which bar this practice.) Tangible media and performance tricker, but doable.
@graydon if you read that whole thread of mine, you might conclude I am not, in fact, missing the point, and I am, in fact, arguing that artists need to be paid.
The problem with the current copyright regime is that on one hand it ends up stripping artists of rights to their art, on the other it locks art in corporate vaults. And as a cherry on top, artists don't get properly paid either.
Reforming copyright will need to be part of any systemic solution.
@rysiek The one thing copyright does is say it's yours the instant you create it.
All the other stuff is power relationships and as such I don't think the notion of copyright is the main problem.
Any fix starts with "if your art is broadly enjoyed, you get paid enough for your art that it's rational to keep doing it"; any such fix is going to be resisted because of incumbents but also because the art broadly enjoyed won't be the "right" art.
@graydon I never said the notion of copyright is the problem. I said the modern/current copyright regime is the problem.
And again, we vehemently agree on the fact that any fix has to start addressing power. Part of the problem is that a lot of that power is enshrined in and protected by the current copyright law.
There are many buttons to push, and there are no simple answers, but we must agree that there is a problem and that we need to start fixing it.
@rysiek The distinction seems to be that you're defining the copyright regime—that exercise of power—as the problem, and I'm defining the problem as "you should be able to make a living from your (vaguely popular) art as a matter of expectation, rather than (great) good luck."
@graydon I see what your saying. I agree with your broader statement of the problem.
But fixing it will require serious copyright reform. In that sense, current copyright regime is "a problem" (not "the problem") that needs to be solved.
I can explain, I think. The way I read the last syllable of those two brand names is different:
Spotif[ai]
Son[y]
Spotify could easily be spelled "Spotifie" and keep the same pronunciation. To my Slav brain, "Sony" ends on a "hard" vowel, "Spotify" ends on a "soft" one. Hence the difference.
@rysiek@alextually Hahahaha, that's exactly the same way I'm reading it, Croatian here.
Although, I wouldn't be smart enough to explain it this sensibly, hats off to you!
Add comment