Charlie Stross
OpenAI have a problem: it's not just training text that ChatGPT can reconstruct when prompted, and DALL-E does the same with images—including movie, TV, and computer game scenes and characters. Reductio ad absurdam: trademark-infringing output from a two word prompt ("animated toys"): https://garymarcus.substack.com/p/things-are-about-to-get-a-lot-worse
Being sued by the NYT is bad enough. Being sued by Disney? That' gonna *hurt* …
Alexandre Oliva
Robert
@notroot @pluralistic @KevinCarson1 @cstross @pleaseclap @exception
Making copies of things is essentially what computers do. To prevent that, in today's world, requires intervention with basic people's possesions.
That's why copyrights are a tcing of the past. See this talk by Richard Stallman on the topic, for example
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/copyright-versus-community.en.html
That's the main point, actually. Benefit vs cost, it's no longer a fair exchange.
Btw Kevin is an author too
Word of Mouth
@rsf92@fosstodon.org @pluralistic@mamot.fr @KevinCarson1@kolektiva.social @cstross@wandering.shop @pleaseclap@urbanists.social @exception@mastodon.savvy.ch I get that... I thing Copyleft is pretty cool... if that is the artist's choice. I just don't understand why some seem to think that artists shouldn't be copyrighting their work? For some sort of ideological reason?
I'm just trying to grasp the beef, and it's frankly not obvious what the supposed problem really is, or why getting rid of copyrights -- which protect artists -- is the solution.
Robert
@notroot @pluralistic @KevinCarson1 @cstross @pleaseclap @exception
I think it's you who is confusing things.
Copyright, by it's own name, implies a right to make copies, which is a production right. There are also moral rights, which, as I mentioned earlier, can be covered by other laws or social norms.
The issue is not about what's wrong with copyright, but about what does it acomplish that can't be acomplished any other way vs the evils it produces
Word of Mouth
@KevinCarson1@kolektiva.social @pluralistic@mamot.fr @cstross@wandering.shop @pleaseclap@urbanists.social @exception@mastodon.savvy.ch @rsf92@fosstodon.org You're confusing production rights with copyrights. As an artist, I can enter a contract with a publisher in order to monetize my work -- or I can attempt to distribute it myself. But the copyright remains in my name, forever.
I'm just trying to get someone to tell me what possible benefit there is to getting rid of copyrights? So far, I've heard nothing even remotely similar to a cogent argument.
I don't see why everyone is getting so pissy about this. All I'm saying copyright law protects artists, so why would we get rid of it? It's not exactly a controversial take...
Kevin Carson
@notroot @pluralistic @cstross @pleaseclap @exception @rsf92 So if they download it for free, or share copies of it that attribute it to you as the author, that's OK? Because that's what your argument that it's all about "credit" implies. Most illegal downloading of music, movies, and writing is done with the knowledge of who the actual creator was. Virtually nobody downloads a pdf of Pet Sematery with Joe Blow's name stuck on it -- they want it BECAUSE it was written by Stephen King. Once again, credit is an issue of plagiarism, not copyright as such. Copyright doesn't exist primarily to prevent people taking credit for other people's work. It exists to protect ownership of reproduction rights as a source of income. I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand. Especially when it was YOU who mentioned "incentive" in your original comment on the subject.
I'm done, because arguing with you is like talking to a fencepost.
Robert
@notroot @KevinCarson1 @cstross @pleaseclap @exception @pluralistic
As for the it's mine, if you want a copy just ask.
First, what exactly is yours?
Second, taken strictly, that would ban the second hand market and goes against the first sale doctrine.
Third, I think people have the moral intuition that if you pay to get some work, the author should get a share, the case with Tolkien and LOTR would be an example.
(2/3)
Word of Mouth
@rsf92@fosstodon.org @KevinCarson1@kolektiva.social @cstross@wandering.shop @pleaseclap@urbanists.social @exception@mastodon.savvy.ch @pluralistic@mamot.fr What is mine is what I made! Power to the artist!
I made a drawing. Or I painted a painting. Or I wrote a book. Or I composed a song.
That's what's mine. The creative process and the creation.
The art, both verb and noun. That's what artists DO.
You seem determined to reduce art to monetary incentive. Yes, artists need patronage. But I'm not going to just let people claim credit for my work, either. I'll protect what I made.
Robert
@notroot @KevinCarson1 @cstross @pleaseclap @exception
Sorry but strong disagree here.
As Kevin said, plagiarism is a very different thing from copyright infringement. It's fraud and it's covered with the same law as any other fraud (at least it should/would).
As for sales, there are other ways to get profits without copyright in the 21st century, you can presale books like @pluralistic does with his audio books.
(1/3)
Kevin Carson
@notroot @cstross @pleaseclap @exception Yeah, your constant refrain of "you commies," "It's mine! Mine mine mine! You're StEaLiNG!" isn't spouting bumper sticker slogans at all. Simply continuing to beg the question at issue, by asserting that "it's mine and you're stealing it," is not engaging on the topic in an intelligent manner. If anything, your initial argument about incentive was a more intelligent attempt at discussing the pros and cons of copyright than your subsequent efforts, which degenerated into mindless repetitive assertions.
Robert
@KevinCarson1 @notroot @cstross @pleaseclap @exception
People always forget that the entire argument about copyright and patent is not some form of "property rights" thing, but whether art and science/technology can be funded without them.
I believe they can, that's why I'm against "IP"
Plus, I like my GNU/Linux setup, and part has to be with the philosophy under which it developed (users guide the development of technology)
Word of Mouth
@rsf92@fosstodon.org @KevinCarson1@kolektiva.social @cstross@wandering.shop @pleaseclap@urbanists.social @exception@mastodon.savvy.ch It's not about funding... it's not about money, at all. Dunno how many times I have to say it.
It's about credit. Yes, for big projects, that also means the funding attached to the credit, but it's about credit, and I don't mean "credit card" credit...
I mean to the right to say, "I made this. It is mine. If you want a copy, just ask."
I want my art to be mine. If I choose to give it away, that should be my choice. This isn't a big ask. This is how it has always been.
Word of Mouth
@pleaseclap@urbanists.social @KevinCarson1@kolektiva.social @cstross@wandering.shop @exception@mastodon.savvy.ch Nevermind. I'm just gonna block you since you're just doing the usual mindless "leftist" trolling. Not one of you commies will respond to even the most anodyne questions. You just spout bumper-sticker slogans then, when you encounter any pushback, you Gish Gallop.
So... I'm done. I'll happily engage in discussion of the pros and cons of copyright with anyone who is actually willing to engage on the topic in an intelligent manner.
You, clearly, are not one of them.
Stanley Black-Decker
@notroot @KevinCarson1 @cstross @exception You're even cackling like a movie villain.
Are you familiar with Homer? Euripides?
Word of Mouth
@pleaseclap@urbanists.social @KevinCarson1@kolektiva.social @cstross@wandering.shop @exception@mastodon.savvy.ch LOL no, it's my right as the creator of the art! I'm sorry to tell you, but I'm no communist. You can't have my work!
This ain't rocket science! You commies are basically saying, "Nice art! We're taking it away from you for the good of the state."
What even is the point of all this copyright hate? Why do you want to steal my work?
Stanley Black-Decker
@notroot @KevinCarson1 @cstross @exception This is deliriously egomaniacal
Word of Mouth
@KevinCarson1@kolektiva.social @cstross@wandering.shop @pleaseclap@urbanists.social @exception@mastodon.savvy.ch It's not about the money! It's about the CREDIT.
It's MY art, or MY novel, because I MADE it. That's what copyright protects. If you want the right to copy MY art, you must deal with ME. And the answer is, "No, you may not copy my work."
Maybe you're a publisher, and you offer me money to copy my work? Maybe I accept that money and allow you production rights to make, distribute, and sell copies of my work.
But the copyright is still MINE, for the rest of my life unless I choose to transfer it to someone else. But that's MY choice, because it's MY art.
Kevin Carson
@cstross @pleaseclap @notroot @exception Well, there's also the marketing technique of using non-excludable and non-monetizable goods as free advertising for those that are excludable and monetizable. E.g. allowing free reproduction of music as advertising for concert tickets and merchandise, or making money off the support and customization work for free software.
Charlie Stross
@pleaseclap @notroot @exception Some kinds of art *can't* exist without money behind them, b/c they require teams of people making significant time commitments: e.g. theatre, opera, chamber orchestra, movies, TV drama, animation, computer games. (Amateur/individual instances of the last four exist, eg. single author computer games, but most people seem to prefer big budget productions.) Others are intermediate: novels can be done solo but are improved by a production team (editors/proofreaders).
Stanley Black-Decker
That's your incentive: you're just saying you wouldn't make art if you couldn't monetize it. Lots of artists make art they can't or don't ever intend to monetize
Actually that's the way art existed in society for most of human history
Word of Mouth
@exception@mastodon.savvy.ch @cstross@wandering.shop I'm confused... as a published writer and artist, copyright protects me. Why would artists bother to work if any schmuck could steal our work and claim it as their own?
Stefan Thöni
@cstross My greatest hope from AI is that it can finally bust copyright for good, because everyone sees it the concept is broken.
Alexandre Oliva
Word of Mouth
@lxo@gnusocial.net I mean... nice bumper-sticker slogans.
I get that "leftists" wanna get rid of copyrights. But as an artist and writer, I can only laugh in your face. You don't even have actual cogent arguments. You don't even know WHY you wanna get rid of copyrights. You don't even know what copyrights are, or how they protect artists.
As an artist and writer, I can only say, "Fuck you, no."
Alexandre Oliva
Word of Mouth
@lxo@gnusocial.net I'm already published -- many, many times over.
Copyrights protect not only my published works, but my unpublished ones, as well, because copyrights automatically devolve to the artist.
Do corporations abuse their production rights? Yes. They're corporations. They're greed factories.
But what these anti-copyright fake-ass "activists" want is something (a) completely unintelligible -- they don't actually KNOW what they want to replace copyrights with, because they don't give a fuck about the artists... they're merely self-entitled consumers; and (b) nonsensical, because who else, besides the artist, should hold the right to say what is done with that art thereafter?
I don't expect an intelligent (or even intelligible) response. I've had like 5 of these pointless discussions this week, and only in one case was my interlocutor capable of discussing copyright from an artist's POV. The others all immediately devolved to name-calling and shit-throwing "leftist" pablum about how I'm a nobody, and therefore I should just give all my artwork and writing away to ungrateful very-online gamer bros.
Alexandre Oliva
Word of Mouth
@lxo@gnusocial.net This is exactly what I'm talking about. Once again, as soon as I reply, the claws come out. You're mixing up copyrights and production rights, like most of the other people I've tried to engage with. Copyrights don't just protect publishers and corporations. They protect independent artists as well.
Where's the solidarity with 99% of working class artists? When I paint a painting, the right to make copies remains with me, the artist. Even if I sell a work of art, unless I transfer copyrights, I am still protected against a host of issues. It's not at all like you portray it.
I don't get why supposed "leftists" are up in arms about copyrights. When I try to dig deeper, the answer is piracy. But that's production rights. Your beef is with publishers, not copyright holders.
For example, suppose I team up with a couple other developers and we write an open source game under MIT license. We can't collectively change that license to a corporate copyright until all the copyright holders unanimously agree to go proprietary.
And I definitely agree that CORPORATE copyrights are bullshit.. but NOT because copyrights are BS. It's because of Citizen's United decision of corporate personhood. Corporations should not be legally allowed to hold copyrights. That's reform, though, not abolition.
GNU social JP is a social network, courtesy of GNU social JP管理人. It runs on GNU social, version 2.0.2-dev, available under the GNU Affero General Public License.
All GNU social JP content and data are available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license.