| > "power grab" by artists to defend their works.. so unhinged, hard to respond. 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? |