|
|
|
|
|
|
by mistrial9
929 days ago
|
|
|
"power grab" by artists to defend their works.. so unhinged, hard to respond. OK - in the spirit of YNews.. there is a band of ambient, slow style musicians on Seattle radio KEXP live studio.. called "SlowDive" .. it appears to be four adult humans. Those people own equipment and to some extent, do tours. For thousands of years literally, this "make music and tour" activity is part of human society. This particular "Slow Dive" band does ambient with some emotional lyrics on some songs.. basically it fits exactly what critics here call "copying other influences" .. yet, how do these four adult humans live a life in the modern West ? (might be UK-based) they have to pay bills, the time they tour or make music is "opportunity costs" per Chicago economics. What is the emotional-psychological-economic driver to loudly and repeatedly deny the efforts of these four humans to make a living with their own "slightly unique" music style? Why is it not only OK, but cheered on here, to steal their copyright creative material to "train" computers to produce very similar material, at scale and at low cost? I see a bitter side of non-artists, business people or just money lender types, who see an opportunity to financially benefit by buying stock in companies that steal from artists, combined with some kind of "oh grow up - no one values your precious artwork" attitudes.. |
|
|
In what way is attempting to extend copyright from individual works to styles or sub-styles of art not a power grab? There is currently no concept of copyright that applies to style.
How is this 'defending their works' -- and not fencing off the entire space of art when they have merely staked off a few points within?
Also... Unhinged? Name-calling is not exactly in the spirit of hacker news, but to address the substance of your point -- SlowDive appears to be making music in the style of their predecessors (according to you). Should they be forced to pay them royalties because they heard their works on the radio, or maybe from a bootleg copy from a friend, or at a dive bar they paid no admission to, and then made music in the same or a substantially-similar style?
And if it is different enough not to be called the same style -- what determines the boundaries of a style in this completely novel and untested copyright regime?
> What is the emotional-psychological-economic driver to loudly and repeatedly deny the efforts of these four humans to make a living
It is strange that you seem to think that anyone that says that just having heard these songs (and been significantly influenced by them) should not require payments for making similar works is an attempt to deny their efforts to make a living.
Also, who has stolen works that have played on the radio or are publicly available online for free? Now, in the case of several of these larger AI companies, they have in fact actively taken information that was not publicly available, and that is a different discussion.
If these AI systems merely purchased a CD of the music before using it for training, would this be considered sufficient for you? Why or why not?
> I see a bitter side of non-artists... combined with some kind of "oh grow up - no one values your precious artwork" attitudes
I see a common attempt at painting opposition to an unprecedented broadening of copyright with a broad-brush in these discussions -- I'm both an artist (writer and musician) and I don't hold the opinion (and have not expressed anywhere in the thread above) that you appear to be ascribing to me by proxy.
Am I not allowed to disagree with what I see to be an unprecedented redefinition of copyright without name-calling and dubious and negative assumptions about my intentions on this forum?