Our path to better working conditions lies through organizing and striking, not through helping our bosses sue other giant mulitnational corporations for the right to bleed us out.

  • @200fifty
    link
    English
    75 months ago

    Yeah but this presumes “the best way to beat 'em is to join 'em,” right? Like, when all the operating systems or databases are proprietary, that’s bad because those things are really useful and help you do things better and faster than you would otherwise.

    But this argument applied here is like, oh no, what if large entertainment companies start making all their movies out of AI garbage, and everyone else can’t do that because they can’t get the content licensed? Well… what if they do? Does that mean they’re going to be making stuff that’s better? Wouldn’t the best way to compete with that be not to use the technology because you’ll get a higher-quality product? Or are we just giving up on the idea of producing good art at all and conceding that yes we actually only value cheapness and quantity?

    Also, just on a personal level, for me as a J. Random Person who uploads creative work to the internet (some of which is in common crawl), but who doesn’t work for a major entertainment corporation that has rights to my work, I would really prefer to have a way to say “sorry no, you can’t use my stuff for this.” I don’t really find “well you see, we need to be able to compete with large entertainment companies in spam content generation, so we need to be able to use your uncompensated labor for our benefit without your permission and without crediting you” particularly compelling.

    • db0OP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      0
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      The point is that this tech is not only made for one reason (replacing artists and authors etc). It has plenty of other valid uses, such as an assistant, a sex toy, personal entertainment etc and probably a lot we don’t know due to how young it is. I don’t want to pre-emptively see all the valid uses locked-in to proprietary models and everyone becoming a serf to openAI to use them.

      Call me radical, but I don’t agree that anyone should have the right to tell others how to use their creative work. If you share it, it’s out of your hands. All culture is a remix and has always been this way until the last 120 years. Copyright and Patents have always been a mistake and should be abolished as they achieved the opposite of what they promised.

      • @200fifty
        link
        English
        6
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Haha, sounds like we might have to agree to disagree on this one.

        Copyright is much older than 1904, though! It dates back to the printing press, when it became necessary because the new technology made it possible to benefit off writers’ work without compensating them, which made it hard to be a writer as a profession, even though we want people to be able to do that as a society. Hey, wait a minute…

        • David GerardMA
          link
          English
          1
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          writer protection is not where copyright came from

          • @zogwarg
            link
            English
            0
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            The Berne Convention (Which the US only joined in 1989) is from 1886 and more concerned with author’s rights than the typical american flavor, and was kickstarted by successful writers such as Victor Hugo, it’s fundamentally commercial in nature but was at least partially sold/incepted has protecting a writer’s labour:

            « La loi protège la terre; elle protège la maison du prolétaire qui a sué; elle confisque l’ouvrage du poète qui a pensé(…)14. » — Honoré de Balzac, in a 1834 “Letter addressed to the French writers of the XIX century” advocating for author’s rights.

            Translated: “The law protects land, it protects the house of the proletarian who has sweat; it confiscates the work of the poet who has thought (…)”

            From the body of the convention, in some regards it does place the author higher than the publisher:

            Article 11

            In order that the authors of works protected by the present Convention shall, in the absence of proof to the contrary, be considered as such, and be consequently admitted to institute proceedings against pirates before the courts of the various countries of the Union, it will be sufficient that their name be indicated on the work in the accustomed manner.

            For anonymous or pseudonymous works, the publisher whose name is indicated on the work shall be entitled to protect the rights belonging to the author.

            He shall be, without other proof, deemed to be the lawful representative of the anonymous or pseudonymous author. It is, nevertheless, agreed that the courts may, if necessary, require the production of a certificate from the competent authority to the effect that the formalities prescribed by law in the country of origin have been accomplished, as contemplated in Article 2.

            EDIT:

            And contains from 1886 already the spirit of fair use.

            Article 10

            The following shall be specially included amongst the illicit reproductions to which the present Convention applies: unauthorized indirect appropriations of a literary or artistic work, of various kinds, such as adaptations, musical arrangements, etc., when they are only the reproduction of a particular work, in the same form, or in another form, without essential alterations, additions, or abridgments, so as not to present the character of a new original work.

            Article 7

            Articles from newspapers or periodicals published in any of the countries of the Union may be reproduced in original or in translation in the other countries of the Union, unless the authors or publishers have expressly forbidden it. For periodicals it shall be sufficient if the prohibition is indicated in general terms at the beginning of each number of the periodical. This prohibition cannot in any case apply to articles of political discussion, or to the reproduction of news of the day or miscellaneous information.

            Article 8

            As regards the liberty of extracting portions from literary or artistic works for use in publications destined for educational or scientific purposes, or for chrestomathies, the effect of the legislation of the countries of the Union, and of special arrangements existing or to be concluded between them, is not affected by the present Convention.

            • David GerardMA
              link
              English
              15 months ago

              None of that is its origin

              • @200fifty
                link
                English
                3
                edit-2
                5 months ago

                I’m sorry for my imprecise wording, I was feeling flippant and I know what I said isn’t totally accurate. not a big history person here honestly. I’ll try and stick to joke-commenting next time. but also can you just say what you mean instead of darkly hinting.

                iirc even though the origin of copyright is not really specifically about author protection, part of the broad-strokes motivation for its existence involved “we need to keep production of new works viable in a world where new copies can be easily produced and undercut the original,” which was what I was trying to get at. maybe they picked a bad way to do that idk I’m not here to make excuses for the decisions of 16th-century monarchs

                also again I’m not a copyright fan/defender. in particular copyright as currently constituted massively and obviously sucks. I just don’t think copyright-in-the-abstract is like the Greatest Moral Evil either, bc I’m not a libertarian. sorry ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

              • @zogwarg
                link
                English
                25 months ago

                Agreed, earliest stuff is definetly exclusive royal grant of printing overall to a particular person/guild/company. But some author protection is baked into the first international treaties about copyright, and those treaties are old.

                • @200fifty
                  link
                  English
                  45 months ago

                  The copyright clause in the US constitution (1789) also frames it in terms of granting rights to authors to “promote the progress of … useful arts”. Strictly speaking author protection is not the origin of copyright but also I was snarkily responding to a person who was arguing in favor of AI-training-as-fair-use and implying copyright was 120 years old, not trying to do a detailed explication of the origins of copyright law

        • db0OP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          15 months ago

          It also kickstarted one of the biggest enclosures in recent memory, where profiteers went around and copyrighted indigenous and folk songs and then went against everyone using them.

          • @200fifty
            link
            English
            5
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            That seems bad but also not super relevant to the point under discussion! Unless your point is that it’s bad when a cultural commons is exploited for business profits – in which case, I agree, but, well…

            • db0OP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              2
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              It’s as relevant as we make it in our discussion, no? You brought up the theoretical noble intentions of the copyrights, so I felt compelled to mention their actual results.

              • @200fifty
                link
                English
                5
                edit-2
                5 months ago

                I mean, it seems like you’re reading my argument as a defense of copyright as a concept. I’m ambivalent on the goodness or badness of copyright law in the abstract. Like a lot of laws, it’s probably not the ideal way to fix the issue it was designed to solve, and it comes with (many) issues of its own, but that doesn’t necessarily mean we’d be better off if we just got rid of it wholesale and left the rest of society as is. (We would probably be left with excitingly new and different problems.)

                As I see it, the actual issue at hand with all of this is that people are exploiting the labor/art/culture of others in order to make a profit for themselves at the expense of the people affected. Sometimes copyright is a tool to facilitate that exploitation, and sometimes it’s a tool that protects people from it. To paraphrase Dan Olson, the problem is what people are doing to others, not that the law they’re using to do it is called “copyright.”

      • @gerikson
        link
        English
        65 months ago

        I happen to copyright my output (obviously not here or in other comments). The question I ask myself is: would I be ok if a Nazi organization used my photos in their propaganda? I’m not ok with that, so I like to retain control over who can use my stuff. If someone acceptable were to ask me, I’d let them use my work without compensation.

        • db0OP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -2
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          Death of the Author applies here. One can’t prevent how others interpret their work. The same way a neonazi org might use your work for propaganda, is how leftists repurpose Stonetoss comics for their own purposes. Or rather, it’s not that you can’t prevent it, it’s that the means by which you would try to prevent it, would create a functional dystopia.

          If someone acceptable were to ask me, I’d let them use my work without compensation.

          Personally speaking, I hate permission culture.

          • @gerikson
            link
            English
            55 months ago

            I remember having this sort of conversation 20 years ago, and it didn’t convince me then.

          • @Amoeba_Girl
            link
            English
            45 months ago

            I don’t really agree with this. Artists can’t (and shouldn’t want to) entirely control interpretation, but they still have a responsibility. If your work is palatable to nazis or advertisers or whatever kind of parasite, you need to reflect on why and make it less so, or you’re complicit in my book. I say this as an artist who’s repeatedly moved on to new forms of expression as fashion catches up.

            • @gerikson
              link
              English
              55 months ago

              Me asserting copyright means I can express myself however I want, and Nazis can get their images from Unsplash or make it themselves. There’s no risk of complicity on my part.