I wonder if the whole #AI thing will finally convince artists that modern #copyright regime was never meant to protect *them*.
It was meant to protect the middlemen. The Amazons, the Spotifies, the Sonys, the Disneys. The film studios, the publishing houses.
Now the middlemen figured out they own basically all of art, and that they can just train a computer on that, to replace artists with a piece of software.
And then stop paying artists even the pittance they were being paid so far.
🧵
Courtney Love hit the nail on the head years and years ago:
https://www.gerryhemingway.com/piracy
> Today I want to talk about piracy and music. What is piracy? Piracy is the act of stealing an artist's work without any intention of paying for it. I'm not talking about Napster-type software. I'm talking about major label recording contracts.
Now the same companies that had cried "protect the artists!" to extend copyright over and over again are salivating at the thought of replacing artists with software.
Artists now realize they had signed the rights to their own work over to middlemen, who use that very work to try replacing them.
When they signed these contracts, often years ago, there was no talk of "AIs" able to "generate content". That was not even on the horizon.
"We have altered the deal. Pray we don't alter it any further."
Would they have signed these contracts if that was clearly stated in the terms? Well, if the WGA strike is any indication, I'd wager a bet the answer is "no".
I hope this becomes a wake-up call to all #artists, to all creative people out there — a wake-up call not just about #AI and automatically generated content, but also, and more importantly, about how urgently we need solid #copyright reform.
We had been needing it for decades, in fact.
#Art is not supposed to be hoarded by Disneys or Sonys, not supposed to be locked in corporate vaults. Art is more than just means of "maximizaing shareholder value".
#Artists cannot be replaced by some software. But it will take corporate execs a few years to learn it the hard way.
Meanwhile, artists will be hurting, bad. They will need our support — they always did!
So support them directly, if you can. Boost their toots on here, buy their merch, donate to them via whatever means they accept, or just send in a good word.
♦️♦️♦️
As this seems to be blowing up, a call to #art: this is now a "share your art" thread. I shall boost, if alt-text is provided. 💜
@DanielTuttle as far as I understand AI companies are using "data-mining exception" in the EU to go around copyright and claim AI-generated works are not to be treated as derivative works.
Disclosure, I lobbied *for* that exception, because it is crucial for things like science, investigative journalism, etc. It was never meant to be used in a way that AI companies use it (that is, to create new works of the same order, so to speak), and I believe this needs to be fixed ASAP.
@DanielTuttle obviously there is not going to be a silver bullet.
Regarding AI, making clear these are derivative works would be a good step. Regarding the broader issue, I would want to see Disney, Sony, Amazon et al being treated like the oligopolists they are, with some anti-trust action happening.
I would like to see the concept of "moral rights", in some form, having a bit more weight.
The incentives and risks are currently completely upside-down. More power needed for the artists.
@DanielTuttle ideas like Philippe Aigrain's (from "Culture and the Economy in the Internet Age") are definitely worth considering.
I need to read R. Giblin's and C. Doctorow's "Chokepoint Capitalism" finally. From what I heard (including on a lecture by them), there are some concrete ideas there.
But the bottom line is: we need a different model, as the current model of making sure artists get paid is being completely played by a few oligopolists.
I do wonder what your thoughts are, though!
@rysiek Complicated. I personally don't think AI is infringing on anyone's copyright. It's remixing and to such a fine degree it's practically derivative. IMHO: all art is derivative.
Speaking within the constraints of capitalism: If AI threatens someone's art, their art probably isn't commercially viable. I know that's a loaded statement but you know.
@DanielTuttle capitalism does suck.
Technology is not throttled, it's regulated. We can steer it towards being useful and helpful and equitable, or we can steer it towards being outright dystopian. Allowing one is "throttling" the other, and vice-versa.
"Technology is neither good nor bad, nor is it neutral."
We can and should regulate it and steer it in ways beneficial to the society at large, not just the lucky few.
@DanielTuttle not even close. As much as used-tech salesmen like Sam Altman want us to believe, GPT-4 is nowhere near being intelligent in any meaningful sense. Don't get distracted by the hype.
Here's a great podcast episode about this that cuts right through the bull:
https://thedigradio.com/podcast/ai-hype-machine-w-meredith-whittaker-ed-ongweso-and-sarah-west/
@DanielTuttle GPT-4 is eight GPT-3s in a trenchcoat:
https://pub.towardsai.net/gpt-4-8-models-in-one-the-secret-is-out-e3d16fd1eee0
It's not getting better exponentially, they've hit a wall. Google is worried that smaller, FLOSS models are going to eat their cake:
https://www.theverge.com/2023/7/10/23790132/google-memo-moat-ai-leak-demis-hassabis
This tech is simply not going to create SkyNet, full stop. They do want us to believe it might, though, so that they can scare lawmakers to regulate the competition away!
Regarding Asimov's rules: capital doesn't care about any rules that are not enforced. 🤷♀️
@DanielTuttle you know, I simply do not find this kind of fatalism interesting nor useful.
If you're only interested in complaining about how screwed we all are and pointing out nothing can be done, you do you, but I'll bow out of this conversation then. Have a good one! 
@rysiek I don't think we're all screwed. I was mostly making a joke but it's not a huge exaggeration. A lot of current legislation places a higher value on property and commerce than lives. That isn't being fatalistic, that's what actually happens.
I think there are solutions but they require a lot of perspective realignment. We can discuss ideals all we want but there are realities behind law as they exist. And copyright law has unequivocally become more and more friendly to The Mouse, et al
@DanielTuttle based on the history of the Statute of Anne, arguably the first copyright law on this green Earth, I would argue that the original intent was always the same: protecting the middlemen, and using artists' rights as a convenient excuse.
I do believe, however, that laws are what we make of them, and if artists decided they won't take it anymore and denied the middlemen that excuse, copyright could be reformed in ways useful and helpful to independent artists.
“We live in capitalism. Its power seems inescapable. So did the divine right of kings. Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings. Resistance and change often begin in art, and very often in our art, the art of words.”
I know you must have seen this quote from Ursula K. Le Guin, but it just fits too well here for me not to quote her.
@rysiek If you consider Audiobook Narrators to be artists and audiobooks to be art (I do, honestly, on both counts), then here is a link to my catalogue of high heat audiobooks:
https://adaraastin.ck.page/87de3a4c9f
Plus a bonus link to a collection of NSFW audiobook titles that are available for a limited time only:
https://smutlandia.com/@AdaraAstin/110679361533854272
#Art #SupportArtists #Audiobook #AudioFiction #Romance #Romancelandia #Erotica #EroticRomance @audiobooks @AudioFiction @bookstodon @romancelandia @smutstodon
Premium Romance & Erotic Audiobooks, narrated by Adara Astin. As a professional audiobook narrator, I work with premium erotica & romance authors to bring their books to life in audio form. Subscribe to my newsletter, explore my audiobooks, or check out the other ways to support my work below.
@AdaraAstin I absolutely do consider audiobooks art and audiobook narrators artists. Many books get a completely new shine, new depth, in an audiobook version!
@audiobooks @AudioFiction @bookstodon @romancelandia @smutstodon
Attached: 4 images 🧵Happy #PortfolioDay! I'm Temrin: nonbinary freelance #illustrator working mainly as an anthro/fantasy character artist. #Digital & #traditional art. (Images glazed) I have some small #CommissionsOpen currently but quotes for larger projects welcome. https://wildelementstudios.com/#illustrations #mastoArt #CreativeToots
@lispi314 I am not entirely on-board with the idea of abolishing copyright. I do believe it needs serious, deep reform, but abolishing it outright would have too many unintended consequences, in my opinion.
First and foremost, there would need to immediately be an alternative available for artists to be able to make a living. Copyright is broken, but it still allows a lot of artists to get paid.
Also, all of the copyleft software licenses would become unenforceable. To me, that's a big deal.
@rysiek On that first part, I think Patricia Taxxon (https://www.youtube.com/@Patricia_Taxxon/search?query=The%20Golden%20Calf) has a generally good idea of a model that actually makes sense & would work.
Not mentioned in her argument directly would be the importance of labor rights & organization in achieving it.
> Also, all of the copyleft software licenses would become unenforceable. To me, that's a big deal.
Likewise though would become any litigation for liberating software or info.
No cleanroom reverse-engineering nonsense any longer.
@alextually hahaha, right!
I can explain, I think. The way I read the last syllable of those two brand names is different:
Spotif[ai]
Son[y]
Spotify could easily be spelled "Spotifie" and keep the same pronunciation. To my Slav brain, "Sony" ends on a "hard" vowel, "Spotify" ends on a "soft" one. Hence the difference.
@elkarrde hvala ti puno!
@rysiek I think you're missing the point.
Artists need to get paid. (Otherwise they starve in a garret.) The only way to get paid is through middlemen. (Ask anybody into, say, being their own ebook publisher how that's working out.)
Talking about copyright reform is kinda pointless, because it's one of many tools used to control where the profit accrues. What's needed is a reliable means of paying the artist into which a middleman cannot intrude.
@rysiek What's needed isn't copyright reform but using the coercive power of the state to remove middlemen from the process.
Since middlemen do provide useful services to the art-consuming public, this isn't trivial, but it's not that hard, either.
For electronic media, it's fairly obvious that you could use the library system and pay artists based on public engagement. (And write laws forbidding contracts which bar this practice.) Tangible media and performance tricker, but doable.
@graydon if you read that whole thread of mine, you might conclude I am not, in fact, missing the point, and I am, in fact, arguing that artists need to be paid.
The problem with the current copyright regime is that on one hand it ends up stripping artists of rights to their art, on the other it locks art in corporate vaults. And as a cherry on top, artists don't get properly paid either.
Reforming copyright will need to be part of any systemic solution.
@rysiek The one thing copyright does is say it's yours the instant you create it.
All the other stuff is power relationships and as such I don't think the notion of copyright is the main problem.
Any fix starts with "if your art is broadly enjoyed, you get paid enough for your art that it's rational to keep doing it"; any such fix is going to be resisted because of incumbents but also because the art broadly enjoyed won't be the "right" art.
Any fix has to start by addressing power.
@graydon I never said the notion of copyright is the problem. I said the modern/current copyright regime is the problem.
And again, we vehemently agree on the fact that any fix has to start addressing power. Part of the problem is that a lot of that power is enshrined in and protected by the current copyright law.
There are many buttons to push, and there are no simple answers, but we must agree that there is a problem and that we need to start fixing it.
@rysiek The distinction seems to be that you're defining the copyright regime—that exercise of power—as the problem, and I'm defining the problem as "you should be able to make a living from your (vaguely popular) art as a matter of expectation, rather than (great) good luck."
I don't think those things are equivalent.
@graydon I see what your saying. I agree with your broader statement of the problem.
But fixing it will require serious copyright reform. In that sense, current copyright regime is "a problem" (not "the problem") that needs to be solved.
@rysiek
1/ I see the idea of #copyright from multiple POVs.
I'm a writer & #editor. I've worked both freelance & in traditional #publishing. The system initially worked very well for #writers, & was well worth their portion of the pie:
* Publishers screened out bad writing, mentored less experienced writers to improve.
* Several people would edit each book/short story (not cheap).
* In the days before internet, you NEEDED to get onto shelves to get noticed. Publishers were able to provide that access & the marketing. (This was NOT cheap to do. Writers could not afford that level of marketing. They also didn't know who could help them or how; publishers had that industry knowledge & networking.)
* Copyright protection & lawyering up for libel suits, etc. would also be provided free to the author, as needed.
* Agents (another middleman) would (and still do) provide excellent contract negotiations (not only btwn #authors & publishers, but for movie rights, sequel issues, etc.)
@rysiek
2/
* Before #PrintOnDemand #POD and online book sales, a book run was generally 10K copies or more. Someone had to organize & oversee the logistics of moving them all to stores & maintaining stock at the point of sale. Plus, 10K copies requires a lot more storage space than you would think. That's also another cost.
* If you were lucky & your book sold more than 10K, another print run were another cost. Translations & international sales meant more expenses.
* Back then, the only form of real "self-publish" was #VantiyPress, which was as much of a ripoff and waste of money then as it is today.
Basically, it's easy to be comfortable in this modern era and think that things have always been as they are now, that the #arts were always something that #artists could do on their own and pay the rent. It's easy for younger people to think that the middlemen were always unnecessary, but that's not true.
Life was VERY different before the internet.
3/ I do think that we are seeing a new paradigm shift in how things are done.
For too long, we've been trying to govern the internet using 18th Century methods, but it's a square peg that doesn't fit into that old round hole. We've been trying to make it work, and getting by with it mostly, but also setting ourselves up for a disaster (especially with topics like #Copyright).
But I also think that ideas like #TheFediverse and modern #SelfPublishing are allowing #artists to flip things. They are allowing "the Common Man" (and woman) to put their art on the market without the need for the middlemen anymore, and empowering more independent voices. They are giving #artists and #writers a way around the corporate gatekeepers.
#WritingCommunity #WritersOfMastodon
https://annethewriter33.wordpress.com/2023/07/06/the-future-is-federated/
Just_Jenn
Michał "rysiek" Woźniak · 🇺🇦
Daniel Tuttle 🌵🤘
HighlandLawyer
Adara Astin
Temrin 😷 💛🤍💜🖤
LisPi
acb
Winged Hussar
Kid Mania
John Mierau
Nekodojo
Fuzzy BumbleBeans
Ian Tindale
bituur esztreym
Bob Mottram :debian:
Alex
Neven Falica
Graydon
Thad
AnneTheWriter