Post B9srdJRYl339DnF3DM by Kay@mastodon.nz
(DIR) More posts by Kay@mastodon.nz
(DIR) Post #B9sHjcFa9PRWwBLUoa by ariadne@social.treehouse.systems
3 likes, 1 repeats
fwiw the copyright arguments about GenAI do not hold water with me. copyright is the tool of the noble classes, and should be abolished. the fix is, and has always been, to abolish copyright.what arguments *do* hold water with me are the political ones: commercial GenAI represents the greatest concentration of money & political power our generation has ever seen.my arguments *against* GenAI in alpine, and in my own projects, are based on a risk analysis of that concentration of power: as maintainers we cannot protect our autonomy, nor our projects' sovereignty, in an era where we become dependent on GenAI. the people who control our access to GenAI technology will, instead, be the person who exercises total control over FOSS projects which embrace GenAI.
(DIR) Post #B9sHxSVBBxjCl1F4FM by valk@social.treehouse.systems
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ariadne true, but this is also an incrementalist vs reformist argument: copyright isn't going anywhere, so why not ensure it at least applies to evil people too?
(DIR) Post #B9sI4MSU3lsk2bGxSy by thomasjwebb@mastodon.social
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ariadne a lot of the copyright-based arguments against AI are, for me, "based if true but not true." I more worry about it being like copyright on steroids - people getting in trouble for "infringing" because every possible permutation of culture was auto-copyrighted by a massive server farm.
(DIR) Post #B9sLzqBmUiIgcLYmHY by mathieucomandon@fosstodon.org
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ariadne 100% agree on the copyright abolition. As for the concentration of power held by corporations, the best escape route is local AI. We already have Opus level quality open weight models, which I would use today, if the hardware wasn't prohibitively expensive (because of the corporations holding power). Once I have 128GB of VRAM at home, there is no way I'm paying for cloud hosted AI again.
(DIR) Post #B9sNy4N8zS6Xw39r5E by ariadne@social.treehouse.systems
0 likes, 0 repeats
@valk sure, which is why I support rightsholders suing the AI companies for piracy
(DIR) Post #B9sWN87YzNIkR0KZzk by gordonmessmer@fosstodon.org
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ariadne It's weird to see copyright objections to GenAI so often, given that so many of the people who built the Free Software community believed that copyright and patent should not apply to software, at all. It's deeply entrenched in the history of the movement, but seems to be mostly lost on the community, today.
(DIR) Post #B9sWZXlBUOv9QZma12 by rabbit_fighter@mastodon.world
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ariadne If copyright is abolished, how do artists get paid for their work? Or do you think artists should not be paid for their work?
(DIR) Post #B9sYiDJz36uMYKK0fo by fazalmajid@vivaldi.net
0 likes, 1 repeats
@ariadne This, so much this. I am shocked at how people have internalized the copyright lobby's propaganda. Copyright was originally a tool of censorship, the King of England would decide what books would be allowed to be printed or not, and all printing presses had to be licensed. Any similarity , etc, etc.
(DIR) Post #B9sYxcZbRfqXDJyT6e by ariadne@social.treehouse.systems
0 likes, 1 repeats
@rabbit_fighter artists have been paid for their work prior to copyright and will continue to be paid for their work after copyright is eventually abolished.and, importantly, artists barely profit from copyright as they are usually not the rights holder, but instead the publishers typically hold the copyright as typical advance deals include IP exclusivity.copyright is for publishers, not artists.
(DIR) Post #B9sZ8X5u9lLtPGHoJ6 by whitequark@social.treehouse.systems
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ariadne @rabbit_fighter artists advocating for copyright is probably the most visible (to me) instance of people who fight against their own class interests
(DIR) Post #B9sZRM4rLCvWjxlxCK by ariadne@social.treehouse.systems
0 likes, 0 repeats
@whitequark @rabbit_fighter @glyph yes, hence why I support Sony suing the AI companies for violating their IP rights
(DIR) Post #B9sZTtteZZqOCxkEfQ by glyph@mastodon.social
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ariadne @whitequark @rabbit_fighter 👍🏻
(DIR) Post #B9sacNTWaHWMDP84eG by kevin@fedi.kbg.sh
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ariadne @rabbit_fighter I just cannot imagine any world where we return to a patronage model of artistic production (which was typically only available to a minute amount of relatively privileged people) vs anyone who puts their art out in public immediately getting ripped off. What economic reason would exist to support artists in this world?
(DIR) Post #B9sc26Qkg83spqf9wu by barbra@vivaldi.net
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ariadne Without copyright, anyone can take your work and put their name to it. Also there would be no gpl.Limited time (say 15-20 years) would encourage the production of works without tying them up forever.
(DIR) Post #B9shtcprQZpcSLkS92 by rabbit_fighter@mastodon.world
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ariadne I'm not advocating for copyright. As an artist, I kind of hate it. But, if you want to tear a system down, you have to figure out how to replace it. Yes, artists got paid before copyright. But, it was usually by rich patrons. Patronage is not a better system. It actually ensures that art serves money/power even more obsequiously than under our current system. So, by all means, let's tear down copyright but let's figure out what comes after first. It's easy to tear down, harder to build.
(DIR) Post #B9sjyBmxc8jxvchBmC by arniepix@masto.nyc
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ariadneCopyright is how creative people earn their living. It is how they raise their children. If you think that the work of creative people, very, very few of whom have ever come from "the noble classes", is worthless, then please crawl back under whichever rock you were spawned under.
(DIR) Post #B9slfTQg0Djr2uTZM8 by jayalane@mastodon.online
0 likes, 1 repeats
@kevin @ariadne @rabbit_fighter most artists right now don't earn a living from their art - they do commercial art, teach in uni or to kids, have a day job, etc. I suspect the same is true for most writers but my spouse is a painter. The reasons to support artists is because people want art not because of copyright. 1/2
(DIR) Post #B9slfTfZ6reFn5RSYy by jayalane@mastodon.online
0 likes, 0 repeats
@kevin @ariadne @rabbit_fighter Maybe the 1% of famous artists have to worry about not being copied, but whole industries exist to rip off artists that start by getting them to sign complex rights agreements and end with the company getting most of the money from a few sales of a lot of artists. 2/2
(DIR) Post #B9slfTsgK68kRlZw0W by ariadne@social.treehouse.systems
0 likes, 0 repeats
@kevin @rabbit_fighter @jayalane seconding this: my partner is an artist and arguably many of my own projects are more about artistic expression than actual productive engineering output.I do not pretend to know what the answer is to getting artists paid a living income, but I can tell you that copyright has not made me, my partner or any of the other artists I know any significant money.
(DIR) Post #B9sm2ycQCtrERGB1Rg by kevin@fedi.kbg.sh
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ariadne @rabbit_fighter @jayalane I mean, this is just not my experience *at all* or anyone I know who writes for a living. It would be utterly impossible to make any money writing (even the pittance you can make now) without copyright protections. The patronage model would just close off this path to employment even further.
(DIR) Post #B9smxkbkyGqdUWwC6i by ariadne@social.treehouse.systems
0 likes, 0 repeats
@rabbit_fighter @jayalane @kevin at no time have I advocated for the patronage model, but there are many forms of art that are not writing where nobody is making money unless they get really lucky.
(DIR) Post #B9snSx6SZ2YZDoB1TE by ariadne@social.treehouse.systems
0 likes, 0 repeats
@rabbit_fighter @jayalane @kevin some artists I know were briefly interested in NFTs as a certification of authenticity, but the market clearly is not interested in authenticity as a value proposition.I suspect part of that was due to NFTs being a form of crypto asset, but the point stands that there was not any particular interest in being able to assert that you possessed 1 out of N authorized copies of a creative work.
(DIR) Post #B9snzaNQ579cIEfdGi by jayalane@mastodon.online
0 likes, 1 repeats
@kevin @ariadne @rabbit_fighter well you could sell the second article - presumably there is some relationship building involved? If magazines even survive. Or maybe copyright of five ten twenty years? I don't know - I sell rights to the code I write and I can say for sure civilization would be better if I were just paid for the writing time and effort not the output. We keep inventing the same wheels over and over again.
(DIR) Post #B9so9hsz19xEThGC12 by jayalane@mastodon.online
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ariadne @rabbit_fighter @kevin oh that's still a little thing - someone just asked my wife if she wanted to do some NFTs.
(DIR) Post #B9soob65A9gXIPswsa by ariadne@social.treehouse.systems
0 likes, 0 repeats
@arniepix no. copyright is how publishing houses make lots of money and give the creative person pennies on the dollar.its always the men on here lmao
(DIR) Post #B9sowVhF7sYkrZ2XpY by ariadne@social.treehouse.systems
0 likes, 0 repeats
@barbra if copyright did not exist, we would not need the GPL.
(DIR) Post #B9spBMStjLKKZmPaq0 by ariadne@social.treehouse.systems
0 likes, 0 repeats
@barbra @jannem precisely. a reasonable exclusivity period on a creative work (say 10 years) is enough.but really the entirety of copyright needs to be scrapped and redesigned to meet the present.unfortunately, Disney has other views.
(DIR) Post #B9spOVZTBZqIaAkqjQ by jannem@fosstodon.org
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ariadne @barbra The problem I would have is that I'd not be able to restrict who could use the stuff I make, and so keeping it to myself would be the only recourse.But of course, that's the current situation already.
(DIR) Post #B9spV5L37GjZFb95to by ariadne@social.treehouse.systems
0 likes, 0 repeats
@rabbit_fighter @jj patronage does not work to get artists a stable income, but a substantially reformed notion of intellectual property law and open marketplaces would help.right now, copyright law is biased in favor of publishing houses, and people believe this is optimal.regardless, it's not my point. my point is that the political power concentration is a far more profound threat than anything involving copyright.
(DIR) Post #B9sppRHTFFjJ5xB3Wy by ariadne@social.treehouse.systems
0 likes, 0 repeats
@rabbit_fighter in reality, I do not think copyright should be fully abolished, just the current form of it, as it is biased heavily in favor of capital holders.something like a 10 year exclusivity, in the same vein as design patents, seems like the right answer.basically copyright should just be another form of patent.
(DIR) Post #B9srdJRYl339DnF3DM by Kay@mastodon.nz
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ariadne Abolish copyright? Really? You may choose to donate hours or years of your work but writers don't. When my partner wrote books it wasn't in expectation of an AI machine copying his work and reproducing it for a company's profit. Writers and other creators deserve to be acknowledged, credited, and paid for their work, preferably with their consent too!
(DIR) Post #B9tkK3cgqgZ08FHNFQ by failedLyndonLaRouchite@mas.to
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ariadne I came here to say what Kay said, but she says it way better then I would have so I'll just repeat what she said:https://mas.to/@Kay@mastodon.nz/117182052762273721
(DIR) Post #B9tkPyVcm7yc0bnPge by failedLyndonLaRouchite@mas.to
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ariadne I often think that politics here is childish and this post is a good example"copyright is the tool of the noble classes"is something a high school student might write