|
> Retribution to copyright holders for artistic work would make a lot of sense. Yes, but it does not solve everything. Because an artist does have (at least in music) a say in how their work is used. That's usually something contractual, sometimes it's supported at the law level (in France, there's the "droit moral" of the author). Legal streaming could have replaced music pirating. But what Spotify became is a threat to musicians too: all the pro and non-pro musicians I know crave to remove their tracks from Spotify, because Spotify pays nothing. But UX-wise Spotify is the best thing on the market at moment for exposure (broadly, if people don't find you on Spotify, they assume you don't exist). This becomes even a bigger issue since Spotify trains its own GenAI on music and streams generated music (which get paid back to... Spotify, instead of the original artists). Legal streaming still "could" be a win for artists, it just isn't today. You either tour and sell ridiculously well your merch, or you go broke (or you have the funds to sustain a negative balance for the rest of your life). The thing, back to software, is that things get abstracted, automated, but on top of these, you will still need: people to understand and manage the abstraction (developers), people to understand/manage the translation machine (more developers), and people to understand/manage the basics/foundations (more developers). The lie that lies into GenAI is this one: we can replace human work (because it makes us reliant and vulnerable on humans) for a cheaper alternative (it's not cheaper, given the externalities, both in the environment and in society). |