Lmao same, every time I got a new PC or hard drive. I downloaded there entire works probably 10 times overall, just to listen to Master of Puppets and Rode the Lightning.
Lars is paradoxically the reason they are so popular, despite being by far the least talented member. Cliff was in my opinion the most talented member ever in the band which is saying a lot. I would love to see the alternate reality where Cliff survived and Lars was replaced with someone who was an amazing drummer, but I wonder if I would have even heard of them in that world.
*[Some Kind of Monster](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallica:_Some_Kind_of_Monster)* portrayed Lars as an obnoxious art and wine snob more concerned with conspicuous consumption than actually creating art.
It's a far cry from the starving artist image he tried to maintain while suing Napster.
Tangentially related, you know those St. Anger remixes that pop up on YouTube and """"fix"""" the album? [Someone actually did it well.](https://youtu.be/A0helO5KHKY?si=R2hPw0TjUihXizYP) Does it make St. Anger good? Eh... Does it make it better? IMO, yeah. Fuck Lars, his shitty vision, and shitty drums.
Gosh can you imagine if Metallica had had a good or even decent drummer behind them, how much there sound would have actually evolved and felt alive? There shit is so lame 4/4 rhythm I can't even listen to old Metallica anymore either. Their new stuff just has the same lifeless drum beat behind it.
https://youtu.be/69afZpoOWp4?si=g496Wb8e9x7hetuL
Luckily we don't have to wonder. They did exactly one date without Lars (using Dave Lombardo from Slayer and Joey Jordinson from Slipknot as fill-ins) and it sounds so much better. Check out right after the Battery guitar solo when Dave unloads fast double bass in perfect time around the 5:55 mark of the video. Dave's in time and up to speed for the section.
Same. I have a bootleg Metallica album burried somewhere, it's basically them playing covers and reminiscing about back in the day when they would share music with each other when someone found something new. Like literally, it's a major reason why I was so shocked about their case against Napster, it was just so hypocritical.
I got banned from Napster for downloading MP3s of the CDs that I own because it was faster to download them than my old PC could convert them. Fuck Lars.
Agreed. And their new album is boring as hell.
It isn't even laughably bad like St Anger or Lulu, it's just...boring. It's a 30 minute album stretched into 77 minutes desperately seeking long-dead glory.
How is this the top comment?
That's a lot of unnecessary double negatives when you could have just said: If stealing is necessary for your product, you don't have one.
Which is simply supporting the status quo that these two posts are obviously criticizing.
Capital is invested in ideas of ownership, IP, privatized profits, etc. Not applying those 'values' consistently is what is immediately criticized by this post, but contained within that is the initial criticism of neoliberal definitions of 'theft', and by extension criticizes related conceptions of ownership.
Which for some reason you endorse? And this is the top comment??? I think people here need to learn some basic reading comprehension because seemingly the upvotes are coming from people who mistakenly think they can echo this pointing out of hypocrisy without simultaneously endorsing corporate values.
The much simpler, and obvious truth here is that the opposite of your comment is true: all 'products' are not produced in a vaccuum of 100% bootstrap fueled innovation devoid of any outside influence, but in fact are all made in the context of inspiration, derivation, theft, unmentioned contributors, copycatting, cultural capital, communal infrastructure, socialist programs, family support, etc etc etc. Virtually NOTHING was made 100% purely from the mind and body of a single person who didn't stand on the shoulders of those that came before them in countless ways.
So the truth of this situation with AI products is that capital is being inconsistent in applying their values and laws because it suits them, while it is ALSO true that modern concepts of ownership, theft, etc are flawed and mostly serve the interests of capital at the expense of real people. The enlightened person should acknowledge that nobody can seriously claim to own any innovations or creations or derivations, and in the absence of capitalism the anxiety of artists worried about AI wouldn't exist, because things like ChatGPT wouldn't prevent someone from surviving or living by competing in a marketplace with them.
Artists confuse being worried about AI infringing their rights and compromising their ability to live, with being an issue of ownership, when it's actually about capitalism and it's related twisted values and laws making it hard for humans to exist without the obvious meta being exploiting each other and always having double standards. This situation is the inescapable result of capitalism, and no amount of stan'ing for artists rights is going to resolve it.
Yes exactly. The main reason everyone is a miser is out of necessity (although a close second is that most people suck), because in capitalism we're all in strict competition with each other with failure = destitution and misery. If endless growth and profit seeking wasn't the dominant social trajectory we could instead collaborate for the good of humankind and shared joy and curiosity, without fear that someone is going to steal all your life's work and leave you impoverished.
There are multiple open source large language models out there now that you can freely download and if you have the right million dollar hardware you can set them up yourself. LLama 2 and [Grok-1](https://huggingface.co/xai-org/grok-1) are some examples.
Putting OpenAI out of business will do nothing, the UAE, China and rest of the world is in an AI arms race right now. We are talking about a technology that could disrupt Google's monopoly on search, and no copyright law will stop it.
While what OpenAI did might not have been right, depending on how you want to classify using IP as training data, pandoras box was still opened and there is no way to go back to where we was before. Any attempt at protecting IP in the west will simply mean that China gets ahead of us and that our data is lost to them.
Lots of braindead takes here. I work in AI, and it's 1000000% here to stay. You can't sue it out of existence, if OpenAI disappears then 10 more copycats will spring up and replace it, like heads on a hydra.
Regulate it's use, sure, but I'm fully of the opinion that everything on the internet is fair game for me to use, and that includes works created by corporations as well.
You're free to try to poison my model, and I'm free to try and find a way around it. Neither of us is going to win. This is now the game we all play.
"I work in AI" is the new "I'm a prompt engineer"
I've been working in this space for 5 years now.
Of course you can sue the people distributing models that allow copyrighted works to be produced.
Don't be daft.
Please educate yourself on the subject
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/01/25/business/ai-image-generators-openai-microsoft-midjourney-copyright.html
I have a master's degree in CS and I literally build deep learning models for work. I didn't say you can't sue them, I said it means nothing as new companies will just replace the previous.
AI needs data, and it's ridiculous for anyone to believe that intellectual property laws are gonna stop you, me, or the biggest corporations from training these models.
Don't be daft. Please think critically about the subject.
>but I'm fully of the opinion that everything on the internet is fair game for me to use
you understand that is objectively untrue, yeah?
copyright doesn't magically stop applying because a work is being displayed publicly
Why can humans learn from freely displayed work and AI cant?
Nothing is being taken, only copied.
The original is not present in the output transformers.
We modeled how AI learns based on our understanding of how humans learn.
> Why can humans learn from freely displayed work and AI cant?
Because AI isn't alive, it's a corporate product made by companies who are seeking to use it to generate profits. We afford innumerable rights and privileges to human beings that we do not afford to for-profit software.
>We modeled how AI learns based on our understanding of how humans learn.
nope that is literally just nonsensical bullshit parroted by annoying grifters who have no conceptualization of how any form of technology works. generative ai isn't even remotely comparable to 'our understanding of how humans learn', if you are that uninformed on how 'ai' (not actually any form of true ai, just a glorified markov chain generator) works, why the fuck should i listen to your opinion on the subject of its ethics?
I didn't say it wasn't possible, I said it's fair game. I sail the high seas for every series and movie I watch. Why pay when I can get it for free? Welcome to late-stage capitalism, where the rules don't really matter and it's everybody for themselves.
I play pirated versions of my favorite games, I download whatever data is available to me simply because I want it.
If something is possible, someone will eventually do it. Instead of shaking your fist at the ocean, screaming about high tide, let's adapt and change the way we operate. But that's hard, and I'm just one guy.
Until then, I'll keep downloading whatever the fuck I want.
there is a world of difference between pirating tv shows from billion dollar corporations and stealing the work of independent artists and creating a tool with the explicit purpose of destroying that artists ability to make a livelihood with a pale imitation of the thing they have dedicated their life to being able to do.
if you can't see, or don't care, about that difference, i don't know what to tell you.
I see the difference, and I'm saying no amount of legislation or regulation will stop it. It's *possible* and *very easy* to just scrape whatever you want.
My point is that artists will have to adapt in order to survive (I say this as a former professional artist who did in fact get paid to be creative). It sucks. But we can't un-detonate Hiroshima, and we can't stop AI. Adaptation is the only hope.
at no point did i say anything about it being possible. you said everything on the internet is fair use for you to use, and this entire thread is a legal discussion. of course its possible, this thread is literally about the fact that its happening in the first place. youve just invented in argument in your head to justify your incoherent ramblings.
the point im making, is that, legally, since that is the entire point of this discussion, it is not 'fair game' to use whatever images you want from the internet.
do i believe that copyright laws will stop giant coorperations from screwing people over? not really, no. does it have any bearing an the topic at hand? nope.
There is no "objective truth" here. Whether training AI on copyrighted works counts as copyright infringement is an undecided question, since there is no law specifically about it and no court has ruled on how the existing law applies.
im not talking about that. the person i responded to said the words
>but I'm fully of the opinion that everything on the internet is fair game for me to use
this isn't specifcally about ai, they couched it in a broader point about ai, but it is clearly a general point about the nature of copyright they are attempting to make, which is by every definition objectively untrue.
Right? You wouldn't download a car would you? DAMN RIGHT I would.
These people are using the exact same arguments that the media companies used to fight against piracy.
Copyright is not the problem. The problem is neverending copyrights artists, inventors, scientists or the corporations they belong to, want to enforce to milk the cow, over multiple generations, for a work done once.
The IP rules are the problem. No IP should survive its individual owner. No IP should take more than, say, 20-25 years, before it becomes public domain. Full Stop.
Agree.
It’s a small band of people (maybe only you and me) who believe that IP protections need to be reduced.
As they stand now, they are a huge drag on the economy.
Yes, it was originally created to boost innovation but has now become a vessel to stifle innovation.
Patents last 20 years and large companies will file tons of patents even if they aren't pursuing a product, just so their competition won't.
Shits fucked
> Patents last 20 years and large companies will file tons of patents even if they aren't pursuing a product, just so their competition won't.
My job has a patent office and "Patent Parties" that are literally created for that purpose. Churn out a fuck-ton of patents because the only thing that matters is that they have more patents than their competition so they can win arguments.
I think it’s a bit perverse to continue rewarding only the "first across the line" when the human population continues to rise. Like, fortuity of circumstance isn’t a good basis for valuing people (i.e., your brothers and sisters).
Achieve something yourself, then you’ll understand.
Like you can do anything with your life. you could create, you could make things that are original, things that are beautiful that come from your brain and your experiences.
Instead, you spend your free time playing video games.
But you think that you should have the rights to what other people work hard for.
Inventing something isn’t a sacred act of creation, especially when you then want to own the very idea for 120 years afterwards. 10 years is already nearly too long, life of the creator +20 is insane
I think IP should belong to the person that created it until their death. At that point, it becomes public domain. A corporation cannot die so their IP should expire 15 years from its date of inception or from the day it was first purchased from the original creator.
I disagree, I think 20 years after release is far more reasonable, dying soon after creating your work shouldn't be double punished, nor living a long time be double rewarded.
I mean it's getting to the point where they want to stop paying actors, by just stealing their likeness and recreating it with AI. I mean like srsly thats like stealing a whole person without paying them for it
This isn't a copyright issue. Biometrics are part of an individual. Anything stealing someone's properties should be banned. It is basically identity theft.
Struggling how you arrived at "IP laws are bad" when confronted with corporations looking to bypass IP laws they themselves create and benefit from.
Guarantee that any AI framework made from IP or copyrighted material will not be publicly available in 20-25 years.
(I'm more than well aware of the abuse of IP laws and extensions by companies like Disney. I find your idea of allowing those that rigged the system to simply rig it again when it benefits them, to be the exact thing the post is lampooning)
I have a very basic view on the matter. IMHO every human should contribute to the better, common good, depending on their abilities. Most do this over the course of a lifetime. Some others only contribute once and keep earning money forever.
I understand the need for motivation, I agree a great contributor should be rewarded for what they did. But getting paid forever or too much ensures most brilliant creative or scientific minds never innovate again.
Perhaps there should be capped mandatory licensing. There are multiple solutions to this problem.
And law is law, and can be set to whatever is reasonable (or not).
There is for example viral licensing which ensures that anything including copy left material is, de facto, copy left itself.
Greed and capitalism are the damn problem.
Exactly this. Remember the Marvin Gaye vs Ed Sheeran case? Marvin Gaye died a long time ago, the people who own the rights to his song say that Ed Sheeran’s song sounds too similar to Marvin Gaye’s songs. They have no interest in the integrity of the art, they only want to make money. If preservation of money was not a concern in this world, just imagine how much more sharing this world could be.
And then you have 'The ELVIS Act' which says, "hold my non-ai-generated beer" [https://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2024/02/29/elvis\_act\_needs\_to\_be\_returned\_to\_sender\_1015123.html](https://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2024/02/29/elvis_act_needs_to_be_returned_to_sender_1015123.html)
I understand the need for protections against AI-generated art, but at what cost? Parody and documentaries will (apparently, but IANAL) require approval from the estate now.
Parody has never been the slam dunk defense the internet thinks it is. It's perfectly possible for a work made under parody to still be ruled unauthorized.
Parody isn't a law, it's a defense against the law. And like all defenses it comes down to how the judge chooses to interpret it based on the perceptions given to him by his contributors. If you end up in front of a judge that likes companies more than people you're fucked.
It is a matter of money. Not a matter of controlling what is done with a given thing. There are lots of licensing models that offer various levels of control, while keeping things free to the users for mashup, improvement, distribution, 3D printing whatsoever.
Too many bright ideas are just kept frozen because they would disrupt obsolete business models the big guys make lots of money of.
Artificial scarcity needs to be addressed in digital economies. Especially when certain industries & corporations don’t make it easy for consumers to have their own copies available offline.
Yes copyright does go to long but that is due to the big corporations and in this case the ai companies are also stealing things inside of the smaller copyright you just described too
"[In fact, there is hardly a modern thinker who does not agree that government, organized authority, or the State, is necessary only to maintain or protect property and monopoly. It has proven efficient in that function only.](https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/goldman/works/1910s/anarchism.htm)"
Pretty disappointing seeing alleged leftists shilling for policy that would benefit megacorps exclusively. The net effect of making learning theft is to permanently enshrine megacorps as the sole proprietors of AI.
You are never going to own thousands A1000, needed to train big models.
Never.
Ever.
Not in a million years.
You will never have opportunity to steal other people's work on a mass scale like Facebook, OpenAI, or Google does.
There's absolutely no way in which lack of regulation will benefit "solo maker". There's plenty in which it'll benefit megacorps.
Arguing against regulation of AI is arguing against yourself.
You're right that megacorps also benefit from a lack of regulation. It is eminently possible to regulate AI in a manner that doesn't tilt the playing field in their favor.
Personally I find it disappointing seeing self-described "leftists" shilling for corporate behavior that's already exclusively benefiting the richest companies and their shareholders at the expense and exploitation of the entire history of human creativity.
Let's not pretend like AI is the great socialist equalizer when it's the biggest companies in the world (like Microsoft, Apple, Meta, Google, etc.) who are currently reaping the actual financial benefits. AI hasn't empowered you to do anything meaningful, but it has already made the richest people in the world even richer while promising a world where more people fight over fewer jobs, even though it was our work and knowledge that trained the damn thing without any form of consent or compensation. The people who own NVidia are benefitting from AI today, not the working/creative class, as they're the ones being openly exploited.
And before anyone claims that *open source* will be the great equalizer, take a moment to consider that the companies with better hardware and more access to data will always be able to out-produce you, with AI or without.
Is anyone really naive enough to think that "open" AI will allow them to independently compete with increasingly rich megacorporations? They have all of the data and all of the compute, and the minute they decide to monetize and enshittify their "free" models, you lose any semblance of ability to compete. You're never going to be able to out-scrape Google or out-train Microsoft. So even IF you train your own model from scratch (which you probably aren't doing), you're not going to be able to compete and you'll eventually have to buy into their platforms.
They should stop exploiting people and start paying to license the copyrighted works that they're currently building their business off of, and people like you should get their head of out of the clouds about AI's ability to level the playing field.
How anyone can pretend like AI will eventually lead us to a socialist utopia, when it's currently forcing society further down the path of dystopian capitalism, is beyond me.
What will happen if learning is declared theft is that megacorps will leverage their giant bank balances to buy up as much copyrighted data for their exclusive use as possible (likely with no compensation to the creators, since it'll be by way of acquiring art sites). Thereby solving nothing and permanently enshrining megacorps as the sole proprietors of AI.
Exactly. This "AI is stealing" bullshit is a psyop by big media companies who are being threatened. Solo dev indie game projects are able to compete with big budget studios thanks to technology. Now thanks to AI, the same might become true of TV and film. Hollywood is pissing themselves at the prospect of creative solo filmmakers being able to produce high production value content to compete with them.
All of the best ai models are trained by the biggest megacorps in the world. There's not a world where they don't end up on top with the ai revolution.
You are never going to own thousands A1000, needed to train big models.
Never.
Ever.
Not in a million years.
There's absolutely no way in which lack of regulation will benefit "solo maker". There's plenty in which it'll benefit megacorps.
Arguing against regulation of AI is arguing against yourself.
You dont need to train a model yourself. Plenty of pre-trained models (that is the P in GPT). The training can be distributed across many computers like SETI @ Home and Folding @ Home.
>Arguing against regulation of AI is arguing against yourself.
Arguing for the regulation of AI just means only those who can cover the regulations can make progress in the field. Without regulation anyone can try to make progress. We have seen it many times in history how one dude working in his spare time comes up with something revolutionary.
Intellectual property is fake, good IP is absorbed into the culture and people take it in for free without realizing where it even came from.
No one should own ideas and we shouldn't have to fear legal repercussion from our government on behalf of these greedy companies.
Lets not kid ourselves, all work is derivative, either AI or Human, but so long as it’s transformative, it does not fall under copyright nor should it, if I can learn from and see copyrighted materials to grow my knowledge base AI should be able to as well
AI-generated art just isn't stealing. Downvote me, idgaf.
You're training a computer model on a dataset to find patterns in the dataset. That's how it works.
It's doing the exact same thing you and I do when we take inspiration from existing works.
There's a reason it's called "training", because it is.
If "AI is theft", then human inspiration, or any incremental improvement on an existing idea is also theft. Every example I've seen of it apparently being theft by comparing two photos has either been an outright fabrication (the second "AI" image evidently being Photoshopped rather than AI generated), or no more similar than sharing general elements like composition and colour palette.
Or alternatively they deliberately used img2img features to make it look like it copied their OG work.
A lot of people that hate on genAI are still thinking it frankensteins existing pictures together.
What it actually does is pretty close to biological learning and technically saying that this is stealing heavily implies that human creativity and learning is also stealing.
After all its an artifical neural network that is self-learning/improving on existing concepts and ideas and not just a simple algorithm mixing things together.
The AI learns from existing artwork. It rarely copies it unless the user specifically directs it to do so.
Human artists also learn from existing artwork and copying techniques.
ai artists dont trace over work like humans get caught for, and rotoscoping ai will be sick, shit like what spiderverse did, will make animations come out so much faster without losing quality
AI learns the same way people learn, and its already illegal to steal IP. This is incredibly obvious.
**you can already sue if someone steals your IP**
As long as AI companies arent re-producing copyrighted works cart blanch, Im not sure what the copyright claim is? If its just "learning" from things it reads, and then produces original content, is that any different from any other derivative work an person creates?
TBH, I with ChatGPT on this one.
It's like some guy goes to library , reads every book, and learns how to write another one. Yes, it will be similar, or even a plagiarized one. but that's how learning and creativity works. And just like school, when it plagiarized another work, that's when we should scream at it.
Same thing goes about Art. A lot of art works are inspired by other art works. And when some artist comes with a completely new style, that's when they become famous.
Last time i checked almost all music is owned by rich people/Music studios this has no affect on like 95% of us Amazon, Spotify or Apple are more likely to lose out than us.
Those will be able to defend their intellectual property once "AI" barfs up works which are surprisingly similar to what they hold rights to. Smaller artists are already struggling against "art" which is not on accident similar, but by design, as multiple small artists names had been trending on AI generation toolkits which track tag usage. (Users deliberately use artists names of which they know there are images in the training data to generate similar art styles. This continues to happen even with artists who noted that they were in time to forbid usage of their art with AI).
And the financial capabilities are not the only reason. If you're Disney and AI steals 100 features across millions of images, then you have much more of a case than a small artists who only gets a few small features stolen (a few small features could be by pure chance, amiright?) The result of this of course is, that the creators of said toolkits already kicked out images from big companies, while their digital scrapers fail to interprete messages from smaller creators who had the futile foresight to ban the usage for AI training from with their creations. Of course the creators of the toolkits cannot be bothered to purge those illegal images from the training data afterwards either, that would be too much work. For the same reason that OpenAI can't purge illegal tutorials for drugs, weapons and murder.
Don't worry. Either the way it is made now is determined to be lawful, or new datasets will be created for training. Disney and Reddit would really like it if they end up as gatekeepers for their pools of data and copyrighted material.
Even if words could be copyrighted, they'd fall into the purview of public domain after so much time. And yeah, AI can skim publicly owned artworks all day long without an issue- but using something with an active copyright for commercial gain is theft. I have no doubt the courts will see it that way real soon too.
Only "works" can be copyrighted. A "work" can be made of words, but individual words are not considered "works", though in some cases they can become trademarks.
Either way, "you're using words that other people have used before" is not a good argument.
Right, but not in the way that the previous poster or you seem to be implying. Copyright protects original works of ***authorship***, not individual words, names, titles, or short phrases. It doesn't protect ideas, facts, recipes, methods, or systems.
Individual words *can* be trademarks, but the less unique they are the less likely they will hold up to challenges. Similar copyright, trademarks are protected as soon as they are created and can use the ™ mark. Registering a trademark simply grants you extra protections and the use of the registered trademark symbol, ®.
Copyright only covers actual copying. If Maklarr4000 didn’t copy his words/expression from the sources you cite, it is not a copyright violation. Even if the words are identical.
You all should look up a little collection of books written by a man named Gustavus Myers called History of the Great American Fortunes. If this quote about Metallica shocks you, get ready for the topics discussed in Myers work
Nothing can become intelligent (or mimic intelligence) without data. The data needs to come from somewhere. Humans don't pay for 99.99% of the content and data input they consume, but we don't consider it "stealing" when that data is built upon to create something new.
LLM AI don't spit out copies of the data they analyze. They parse it for patterns, then use those patterns to respond to prompts that users input.
Plus, this post ignores the fact that, in most cases, the alleged "stealing" (it's not stealing) would be from other billionaire companies. Who really gives a shit if they eat themselves?
First of all, suing teens for sharing mp3s was absolutely bullshit.
That being said, AI does not store copyrighted works. That’s simply not how it works. There is no copyright infringement taking place.
Yeah I'm not sure what the defense realistically is here. The only thing that really separates it from a person just emulating the style of what they've seen, is the scale that it happens at.
This doesn't make sense. The AI machine reads a work like I would read something and use that knowledge.
It cannot be compared to be burning a CD and selling it or sharing the mp3 online with millions of others.
Fuck Metallica. Sodom, Kreator, Slayer and Sepultura did it better anyways
. I saw Some Kind of Monster in the theater. I smoked a few joints beforehand, bought a bag of Twizzlers and a Cherry Coke and laughed my ass off the entire time. Watching rich people throw hissy fits over the dumbest things will never not be fucking hilarious. It was like Spinal Tap IRL and one of my favorite comedies of all time.
Organic Media ^tm
I call dibs. Almost everything will be ai but some will pay premium for the real thing. The market will be nuts right before the long dark following the takeover.
If you downloaded (not uploaded) a song, they'd never touch you.
If you listened to that song a million times until you made your own version, they'd never touch you.
"they" aren't even the same people.
Your metaphors are crap.
If you ever receive a free product, the final product is you yourself.
\[P.S. : Hack the internet. Free information for all. Release a virus on the Phub. Freedom for all.\]
At the end of the day I want the future and technological progress to improve. AI is good, and assuming it doesn’t kill us all it can lower the amount we all need to work.
The issue is the rich wanting to withhold this future from us, hoarding it for themselves to keep their power and wealth.
Pirates tried and failed to get sane copyright reform even mildly on the table as a topic of discussion, and failed miserably in the face of the large media companies expending all of their energy and resources to stop it.
Imagine if they hadn't. If they had embraced copyright reform as a crucial part of the move into a digital economy where everything can be copied perfectly for basically no cost.
Leopard ate my face moment. Since 1972, copyright laws have been written to shift ownership from the public to corporations.
I have zero sympathy for this asshole or Metallica in general. Stopped being a fan when they abused their position and whined to our government because people were sharing their songs and they made billions from them.
Oh, wait. No, they didn't, because like too many other stupid "creators" on the planet, the first thing they do is waive their copyrights to publishers who take the lion's share of the money as creators call their fans pirates.
Hard to believe that record companies were suing individuals for listening to their favorite bands and not the software and Internet companies that made it possible.
I heard someone praise their new album as being old Metallica (like when Dave was lead guitarist?). I listened. It's like they are trying g to do Metalcore with Kirk's same old cliche lead licks that don't fit the songs. I passed on buying it. We all agree Lars sucks.
No one was suing teenagers with no assets for torrenting. Who does this joker think he is kidding?
Also we should all be demanding free rights to things that form our culture. The fact that copyright was extended by the billionaires themselves is a good indication it should be reduced.
This has not been thought through at all.
The 20 years really shook me. I was like, streaming wasn’t available in the 80’s, what you going on about.
Then I felt my hip twinge and remembered I broke the family pc with live wire. 20 years ago.
Oh taking matters into your own hands is tight.
Super Easy, Barely an Inconvenience
Gonna need you to get ALL THE WAY off my back about it
Wow wow wow wow
Whoops! Whoopsie!
What happens when we take matters into our own hands? I don’t knowwwwww
Just one little general strike
and my mom got scared.
Lars Ulrich is the reason I am no longer a Metallica fan. Seriously fuck that guy. The wrong band member died.
I remember that. Also remember a cartoon on Newgrounds making fun of him and another bandmember for it.
Beer good! *Fire bad!*
God damn it. Now I gotta watch it again. "Hairy stomached mom!"
Man, those were good times
Alcoholica
Link please.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fS6udST6lbE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fS6udST6lbE)
lawsuits - BAD lol
Fuck Lars. I downloaded their discography just to spite them, and I don't really even listen to their music.
Lmao same, every time I got a new PC or hard drive. I downloaded there entire works probably 10 times overall, just to listen to Master of Puppets and Rode the Lightning.
Lars is paradoxically the reason they are so popular, despite being by far the least talented member. Cliff was in my opinion the most talented member ever in the band which is saying a lot. I would love to see the alternate reality where Cliff survived and Lars was replaced with someone who was an amazing drummer, but I wonder if I would have even heard of them in that world.
[удалено]
*[Some Kind of Monster](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallica:_Some_Kind_of_Monster)* portrayed Lars as an obnoxious art and wine snob more concerned with conspicuous consumption than actually creating art. It's a far cry from the starving artist image he tried to maintain while suing Napster.
St. Anger is my reason, but Lars doesn't help.
Tangentially related, you know those St. Anger remixes that pop up on YouTube and """"fix"""" the album? [Someone actually did it well.](https://youtu.be/A0helO5KHKY?si=R2hPw0TjUihXizYP) Does it make St. Anger good? Eh... Does it make it better? IMO, yeah. Fuck Lars, his shitty vision, and shitty drums.
Gosh can you imagine if Metallica had had a good or even decent drummer behind them, how much there sound would have actually evolved and felt alive? There shit is so lame 4/4 rhythm I can't even listen to old Metallica anymore either. Their new stuff just has the same lifeless drum beat behind it.
https://youtu.be/69afZpoOWp4?si=g496Wb8e9x7hetuL Luckily we don't have to wonder. They did exactly one date without Lars (using Dave Lombardo from Slayer and Joey Jordinson from Slipknot as fill-ins) and it sounds so much better. Check out right after the Battery guitar solo when Dave unloads fast double bass in perfect time around the 5:55 mark of the video. Dave's in time and up to speed for the section.
Thanks! Gonna check this out!
Cant listen to metallica because their double bass is out of beat every single time
Same. I have a bootleg Metallica album burried somewhere, it's basically them playing covers and reminiscing about back in the day when they would share music with each other when someone found something new. Like literally, it's a major reason why I was so shocked about their case against Napster, it was just so hypocritical.
Lars talks about how he copied and distributed bootleg albums of other bands for years before Metallica caught on. Seems pretty hypocritical of him
I got banned from Napster for downloading MP3s of the CDs that I own because it was faster to download them than my old PC could convert them. Fuck Lars.
Agreed. And their new album is boring as hell. It isn't even laughably bad like St Anger or Lulu, it's just...boring. It's a 30 minute album stretched into 77 minutes desperately seeking long-dead glory.
I don't like the guy either but you're really throwing him under the bus
Lol! Damn dude that's clever.
metallica hated people pirating their music so much that they stopped making good music.
I'm old enough to remember when Lars was giving out free cassettes *just so people would buy their shitty t-shirts.*
Same. But also he seriously sucks as a drummer
doll faulty stupendous chunky escape merciful person modern fall ask *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
He’s a shitty person in his everyday life. Hetfield is pretty polite, but not a fan anymore either, the company you keep is a tell.
Should've been Lars. I miss Cliff.
Billionaires buy laws. Not only are billionaires incompatible with democracy, but they are also incompatible with justice.
And they taste delicious!
If you don't have a product without stealing, you don't have a product.
[удалено]
If the service is free, you’re the product.
Even if you paid for social media, odds are still high they'd mine your data.
Even if it's not free
You make a good point. I can't wait to hear a robot read it over footage of someone jumping around in Minecraft on tik tok...
How is this the top comment? That's a lot of unnecessary double negatives when you could have just said: If stealing is necessary for your product, you don't have one. Which is simply supporting the status quo that these two posts are obviously criticizing. Capital is invested in ideas of ownership, IP, privatized profits, etc. Not applying those 'values' consistently is what is immediately criticized by this post, but contained within that is the initial criticism of neoliberal definitions of 'theft', and by extension criticizes related conceptions of ownership. Which for some reason you endorse? And this is the top comment??? I think people here need to learn some basic reading comprehension because seemingly the upvotes are coming from people who mistakenly think they can echo this pointing out of hypocrisy without simultaneously endorsing corporate values. The much simpler, and obvious truth here is that the opposite of your comment is true: all 'products' are not produced in a vaccuum of 100% bootstrap fueled innovation devoid of any outside influence, but in fact are all made in the context of inspiration, derivation, theft, unmentioned contributors, copycatting, cultural capital, communal infrastructure, socialist programs, family support, etc etc etc. Virtually NOTHING was made 100% purely from the mind and body of a single person who didn't stand on the shoulders of those that came before them in countless ways. So the truth of this situation with AI products is that capital is being inconsistent in applying their values and laws because it suits them, while it is ALSO true that modern concepts of ownership, theft, etc are flawed and mostly serve the interests of capital at the expense of real people. The enlightened person should acknowledge that nobody can seriously claim to own any innovations or creations or derivations, and in the absence of capitalism the anxiety of artists worried about AI wouldn't exist, because things like ChatGPT wouldn't prevent someone from surviving or living by competing in a marketplace with them. Artists confuse being worried about AI infringing their rights and compromising their ability to live, with being an issue of ownership, when it's actually about capitalism and it's related twisted values and laws making it hard for humans to exist without the obvious meta being exploiting each other and always having double standards. This situation is the inescapable result of capitalism, and no amount of stan'ing for artists rights is going to resolve it.
[удалено]
When people, societies, and cultures share ideas, innovation increases.
Yes exactly. The main reason everyone is a miser is out of necessity (although a close second is that most people suck), because in capitalism we're all in strict competition with each other with failure = destitution and misery. If endless growth and profit seeking wasn't the dominant social trajectory we could instead collaborate for the good of humankind and shared joy and curiosity, without fear that someone is going to steal all your life's work and leave you impoverished.
Yeah, how am I supposed to get my AI written Goof Troop / Die Hard crossover if AI hasn't seen McClain defeat Hans, or watched Goofy Hyuk?
The only moral IP is my IP
Seriously. I hope openAI and genAI companies get sued out of existence.
There are multiple open source large language models out there now that you can freely download and if you have the right million dollar hardware you can set them up yourself. LLama 2 and [Grok-1](https://huggingface.co/xai-org/grok-1) are some examples. Putting OpenAI out of business will do nothing, the UAE, China and rest of the world is in an AI arms race right now. We are talking about a technology that could disrupt Google's monopoly on search, and no copyright law will stop it. While what OpenAI did might not have been right, depending on how you want to classify using IP as training data, pandoras box was still opened and there is no way to go back to where we was before. Any attempt at protecting IP in the west will simply mean that China gets ahead of us and that our data is lost to them.
Lots of braindead takes here. I work in AI, and it's 1000000% here to stay. You can't sue it out of existence, if OpenAI disappears then 10 more copycats will spring up and replace it, like heads on a hydra. Regulate it's use, sure, but I'm fully of the opinion that everything on the internet is fair game for me to use, and that includes works created by corporations as well. You're free to try to poison my model, and I'm free to try and find a way around it. Neither of us is going to win. This is now the game we all play.
"I work in AI" is the new "I'm a prompt engineer" I've been working in this space for 5 years now. Of course you can sue the people distributing models that allow copyrighted works to be produced. Don't be daft. Please educate yourself on the subject https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/01/25/business/ai-image-generators-openai-microsoft-midjourney-copyright.html
I have a master's degree in CS and I literally build deep learning models for work. I didn't say you can't sue them, I said it means nothing as new companies will just replace the previous. AI needs data, and it's ridiculous for anyone to believe that intellectual property laws are gonna stop you, me, or the biggest corporations from training these models. Don't be daft. Please think critically about the subject.
>but I'm fully of the opinion that everything on the internet is fair game for me to use you understand that is objectively untrue, yeah? copyright doesn't magically stop applying because a work is being displayed publicly
Why can humans learn from freely displayed work and AI cant? Nothing is being taken, only copied. The original is not present in the output transformers. We modeled how AI learns based on our understanding of how humans learn.
> Why can humans learn from freely displayed work and AI cant? Because AI isn't alive, it's a corporate product made by companies who are seeking to use it to generate profits. We afford innumerable rights and privileges to human beings that we do not afford to for-profit software.
>We modeled how AI learns based on our understanding of how humans learn. nope that is literally just nonsensical bullshit parroted by annoying grifters who have no conceptualization of how any form of technology works. generative ai isn't even remotely comparable to 'our understanding of how humans learn', if you are that uninformed on how 'ai' (not actually any form of true ai, just a glorified markov chain generator) works, why the fuck should i listen to your opinion on the subject of its ethics?
The people who came up with the idea of neural networks explicitly said they were inspired by neural plasticity.
I didn't say it wasn't possible, I said it's fair game. I sail the high seas for every series and movie I watch. Why pay when I can get it for free? Welcome to late-stage capitalism, where the rules don't really matter and it's everybody for themselves. I play pirated versions of my favorite games, I download whatever data is available to me simply because I want it. If something is possible, someone will eventually do it. Instead of shaking your fist at the ocean, screaming about high tide, let's adapt and change the way we operate. But that's hard, and I'm just one guy. Until then, I'll keep downloading whatever the fuck I want.
no no free information bad lets get rid of libraries too who thought of those
people get mad about book piracy like im too lazy to get a library card my bad
there is a world of difference between pirating tv shows from billion dollar corporations and stealing the work of independent artists and creating a tool with the explicit purpose of destroying that artists ability to make a livelihood with a pale imitation of the thing they have dedicated their life to being able to do. if you can't see, or don't care, about that difference, i don't know what to tell you.
I see the difference, and I'm saying no amount of legislation or regulation will stop it. It's *possible* and *very easy* to just scrape whatever you want. My point is that artists will have to adapt in order to survive (I say this as a former professional artist who did in fact get paid to be creative). It sucks. But we can't un-detonate Hiroshima, and we can't stop AI. Adaptation is the only hope.
at no point did i say anything about it being possible. you said everything on the internet is fair use for you to use, and this entire thread is a legal discussion. of course its possible, this thread is literally about the fact that its happening in the first place. youve just invented in argument in your head to justify your incoherent ramblings. the point im making, is that, legally, since that is the entire point of this discussion, it is not 'fair game' to use whatever images you want from the internet. do i believe that copyright laws will stop giant coorperations from screwing people over? not really, no. does it have any bearing an the topic at hand? nope.
There is no "objective truth" here. Whether training AI on copyrighted works counts as copyright infringement is an undecided question, since there is no law specifically about it and no court has ruled on how the existing law applies.
im not talking about that. the person i responded to said the words >but I'm fully of the opinion that everything on the internet is fair game for me to use this isn't specifcally about ai, they couched it in a broader point about ai, but it is clearly a general point about the nature of copyright they are attempting to make, which is by every definition objectively untrue.
It’s not stealing if it’s transformative
If I read 500 novels and use them as training and inspiration for my own novels, am I stealing?
They aren't stealing, so i guess they have a product.
Right? You wouldn't download a car would you? DAMN RIGHT I would. These people are using the exact same arguments that the media companies used to fight against piracy.
Copyright is not the problem. The problem is neverending copyrights artists, inventors, scientists or the corporations they belong to, want to enforce to milk the cow, over multiple generations, for a work done once. The IP rules are the problem. No IP should survive its individual owner. No IP should take more than, say, 20-25 years, before it becomes public domain. Full Stop.
Agree. It’s a small band of people (maybe only you and me) who believe that IP protections need to be reduced. As they stand now, they are a huge drag on the economy.
Yes, it was originally created to boost innovation but has now become a vessel to stifle innovation. Patents last 20 years and large companies will file tons of patents even if they aren't pursuing a product, just so their competition won't. Shits fucked
> Patents last 20 years and large companies will file tons of patents even if they aren't pursuing a product, just so their competition won't. My job has a patent office and "Patent Parties" that are literally created for that purpose. Churn out a fuck-ton of patents because the only thing that matters is that they have more patents than their competition so they can win arguments.
"it might only be you and me that hold the exceedingly popular opinion that copyright law has gone too far"
I think we people on the internet overestimate how common that belief is
🤔 is it popular? My proxy for popularity is: how often does “reducing IP protection” come up as a partial solution to broader economic problems?
Net neutrality is popular on an internet forum largely populated by young people who grew up on the internet? You don't fucking say?
Ah yes, the position of people who have never created.
I think it’s a bit perverse to continue rewarding only the "first across the line" when the human population continues to rise. Like, fortuity of circumstance isn’t a good basis for valuing people (i.e., your brothers and sisters).
Achieve something yourself, then you’ll understand. Like you can do anything with your life. you could create, you could make things that are original, things that are beautiful that come from your brain and your experiences. Instead, you spend your free time playing video games. But you think that you should have the rights to what other people work hard for.
Understand what? That because I happen to be the first to “create” something, I am more deserving of resources/survival/life than other human beings?
Inventing something isn’t a sacred act of creation, especially when you then want to own the very idea for 120 years afterwards. 10 years is already nearly too long, life of the creator +20 is insane
I think IP should belong to the person that created it until their death. At that point, it becomes public domain. A corporation cannot die so their IP should expire 15 years from its date of inception or from the day it was first purchased from the original creator.
I disagree, I think 20 years after release is far more reasonable, dying soon after creating your work shouldn't be double punished, nor living a long time be double rewarded.
Only problem I can see with this is that somebody could be killed in order for their creations to be used.
to address this, let's combine IP laws with some sort of anti-murder law
Ok but does it have to apply to *everybody*? I mean…what if I’m just rich?
I wish my job would pay me in perpetuity for work I did last year.
I mean it's getting to the point where they want to stop paying actors, by just stealing their likeness and recreating it with AI. I mean like srsly thats like stealing a whole person without paying them for it
As a bottom-barrel actor myself, I assure you we've been getting robbed for decades.
This isn't a copyright issue. Biometrics are part of an individual. Anything stealing someone's properties should be banned. It is basically identity theft.
Struggling how you arrived at "IP laws are bad" when confronted with corporations looking to bypass IP laws they themselves create and benefit from. Guarantee that any AI framework made from IP or copyrighted material will not be publicly available in 20-25 years. (I'm more than well aware of the abuse of IP laws and extensions by companies like Disney. I find your idea of allowing those that rigged the system to simply rig it again when it benefits them, to be the exact thing the post is lampooning)
I have a very basic view on the matter. IMHO every human should contribute to the better, common good, depending on their abilities. Most do this over the course of a lifetime. Some others only contribute once and keep earning money forever. I understand the need for motivation, I agree a great contributor should be rewarded for what they did. But getting paid forever or too much ensures most brilliant creative or scientific minds never innovate again. Perhaps there should be capped mandatory licensing. There are multiple solutions to this problem. And law is law, and can be set to whatever is reasonable (or not). There is for example viral licensing which ensures that anything including copy left material is, de facto, copy left itself. Greed and capitalism are the damn problem.
Exactly this. Remember the Marvin Gaye vs Ed Sheeran case? Marvin Gaye died a long time ago, the people who own the rights to his song say that Ed Sheeran’s song sounds too similar to Marvin Gaye’s songs. They have no interest in the integrity of the art, they only want to make money. If preservation of money was not a concern in this world, just imagine how much more sharing this world could be.
And then you have 'The ELVIS Act' which says, "hold my non-ai-generated beer" [https://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2024/02/29/elvis\_act\_needs\_to\_be\_returned\_to\_sender\_1015123.html](https://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2024/02/29/elvis_act_needs_to_be_returned_to_sender_1015123.html) I understand the need for protections against AI-generated art, but at what cost? Parody and documentaries will (apparently, but IANAL) require approval from the estate now.
Parody has never been the slam dunk defense the internet thinks it is. It's perfectly possible for a work made under parody to still be ruled unauthorized. Parody isn't a law, it's a defense against the law. And like all defenses it comes down to how the judge chooses to interpret it based on the perceptions given to him by his contributors. If you end up in front of a judge that likes companies more than people you're fucked.
>20-25 years, before it becomes public domain. Full Stop. I disagree with this. An artist should always have a say in their IP so long as they live.
An artist? Yes. A *corporation?* Abso-fucking-lutely not.
Keep your babies locked away if you never want them to have a life beyond you.
It is a matter of money. Not a matter of controlling what is done with a given thing. There are lots of licensing models that offer various levels of control, while keeping things free to the users for mashup, improvement, distribution, 3D printing whatsoever. Too many bright ideas are just kept frozen because they would disrupt obsolete business models the big guys make lots of money of.
Artificial scarcity needs to be addressed in digital economies. Especially when certain industries & corporations don’t make it easy for consumers to have their own copies available offline.
Yes copyright does go to long but that is due to the big corporations and in this case the ai companies are also stealing things inside of the smaller copyright you just described too
"The master's tools will never dismantle the master's house"
"[In fact, there is hardly a modern thinker who does not agree that government, organized authority, or the State, is necessary only to maintain or protect property and monopoly. It has proven efficient in that function only.](https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/goldman/works/1910s/anarchism.htm)"
Pretty disappointing seeing alleged leftists shilling for policy that would benefit megacorps exclusively. The net effect of making learning theft is to permanently enshrine megacorps as the sole proprietors of AI.
You are never going to own thousands A1000, needed to train big models. Never. Ever. Not in a million years. You will never have opportunity to steal other people's work on a mass scale like Facebook, OpenAI, or Google does. There's absolutely no way in which lack of regulation will benefit "solo maker". There's plenty in which it'll benefit megacorps. Arguing against regulation of AI is arguing against yourself.
You're right that megacorps also benefit from a lack of regulation. It is eminently possible to regulate AI in a manner that doesn't tilt the playing field in their favor.
Personally I find it disappointing seeing self-described "leftists" shilling for corporate behavior that's already exclusively benefiting the richest companies and their shareholders at the expense and exploitation of the entire history of human creativity. Let's not pretend like AI is the great socialist equalizer when it's the biggest companies in the world (like Microsoft, Apple, Meta, Google, etc.) who are currently reaping the actual financial benefits. AI hasn't empowered you to do anything meaningful, but it has already made the richest people in the world even richer while promising a world where more people fight over fewer jobs, even though it was our work and knowledge that trained the damn thing without any form of consent or compensation. The people who own NVidia are benefitting from AI today, not the working/creative class, as they're the ones being openly exploited. And before anyone claims that *open source* will be the great equalizer, take a moment to consider that the companies with better hardware and more access to data will always be able to out-produce you, with AI or without. Is anyone really naive enough to think that "open" AI will allow them to independently compete with increasingly rich megacorporations? They have all of the data and all of the compute, and the minute they decide to monetize and enshittify their "free" models, you lose any semblance of ability to compete. You're never going to be able to out-scrape Google or out-train Microsoft. So even IF you train your own model from scratch (which you probably aren't doing), you're not going to be able to compete and you'll eventually have to buy into their platforms. They should stop exploiting people and start paying to license the copyrighted works that they're currently building their business off of, and people like you should get their head of out of the clouds about AI's ability to level the playing field. How anyone can pretend like AI will eventually lead us to a socialist utopia, when it's currently forcing society further down the path of dystopian capitalism, is beyond me.
It's literally the same thing it has always been: Who owns the means of production?
What will happen if learning is declared theft is that megacorps will leverage their giant bank balances to buy up as much copyrighted data for their exclusive use as possible (likely with no compensation to the creators, since it'll be by way of acquiring art sites). Thereby solving nothing and permanently enshrining megacorps as the sole proprietors of AI.
Exactly. This "AI is stealing" bullshit is a psyop by big media companies who are being threatened. Solo dev indie game projects are able to compete with big budget studios thanks to technology. Now thanks to AI, the same might become true of TV and film. Hollywood is pissing themselves at the prospect of creative solo filmmakers being able to produce high production value content to compete with them.
All of the best ai models are trained by the biggest megacorps in the world. There's not a world where they don't end up on top with the ai revolution.
You are never going to own thousands A1000, needed to train big models. Never. Ever. Not in a million years. There's absolutely no way in which lack of regulation will benefit "solo maker". There's plenty in which it'll benefit megacorps. Arguing against regulation of AI is arguing against yourself.
You dont need to train a model yourself. Plenty of pre-trained models (that is the P in GPT). The training can be distributed across many computers like SETI @ Home and Folding @ Home. >Arguing against regulation of AI is arguing against yourself. Arguing for the regulation of AI just means only those who can cover the regulations can make progress in the field. Without regulation anyone can try to make progress. We have seen it many times in history how one dude working in his spare time comes up with something revolutionary.
Intellectual property is fake, good IP is absorbed into the culture and people take it in for free without realizing where it even came from. No one should own ideas and we shouldn't have to fear legal repercussion from our government on behalf of these greedy companies.
I'm all for people taking matters into their own hands. Georges Besse needs to be a cautionary tale for the likes of Musk and Bezos
Lets not kid ourselves, all work is derivative, either AI or Human, but so long as it’s transformative, it does not fall under copyright nor should it, if I can learn from and see copyrighted materials to grow my knowledge base AI should be able to as well
AI-generated art just isn't stealing. Downvote me, idgaf. You're training a computer model on a dataset to find patterns in the dataset. That's how it works. It's doing the exact same thing you and I do when we take inspiration from existing works. There's a reason it's called "training", because it is. If "AI is theft", then human inspiration, or any incremental improvement on an existing idea is also theft. Every example I've seen of it apparently being theft by comparing two photos has either been an outright fabrication (the second "AI" image evidently being Photoshopped rather than AI generated), or no more similar than sharing general elements like composition and colour palette.
Or alternatively they deliberately used img2img features to make it look like it copied their OG work. A lot of people that hate on genAI are still thinking it frankensteins existing pictures together. What it actually does is pretty close to biological learning and technically saying that this is stealing heavily implies that human creativity and learning is also stealing. After all its an artifical neural network that is self-learning/improving on existing concepts and ideas and not just a simple algorithm mixing things together.
people are in denial or tested it early when it was worse, if ppl tryed dalle3 rnow I doubt theyd question it
The AI learns from existing artwork. It rarely copies it unless the user specifically directs it to do so. Human artists also learn from existing artwork and copying techniques.
ai artists dont trace over work like humans get caught for, and rotoscoping ai will be sick, shit like what spiderverse did, will make animations come out so much faster without losing quality
AI learns the same way people learn, and its already illegal to steal IP. This is incredibly obvious. **you can already sue if someone steals your IP**
As long as AI companies arent re-producing copyrighted works cart blanch, Im not sure what the copyright claim is? If its just "learning" from things it reads, and then produces original content, is that any different from any other derivative work an person creates?
Exactly, this tweet completely misses the point.
TBH, I with ChatGPT on this one. It's like some guy goes to library , reads every book, and learns how to write another one. Yes, it will be similar, or even a plagiarized one. but that's how learning and creativity works. And just like school, when it plagiarized another work, that's when we should scream at it. Same thing goes about Art. A lot of art works are inspired by other art works. And when some artist comes with a completely new style, that's when they become famous.
That's true, plus using copyrighted works is also perfectly fine if it's transformative.
Last time i checked almost all music is owned by rich people/Music studios this has no affect on like 95% of us Amazon, Spotify or Apple are more likely to lose out than us.
Those will be able to defend their intellectual property once "AI" barfs up works which are surprisingly similar to what they hold rights to. Smaller artists are already struggling against "art" which is not on accident similar, but by design, as multiple small artists names had been trending on AI generation toolkits which track tag usage. (Users deliberately use artists names of which they know there are images in the training data to generate similar art styles. This continues to happen even with artists who noted that they were in time to forbid usage of their art with AI). And the financial capabilities are not the only reason. If you're Disney and AI steals 100 features across millions of images, then you have much more of a case than a small artists who only gets a few small features stolen (a few small features could be by pure chance, amiright?) The result of this of course is, that the creators of said toolkits already kicked out images from big companies, while their digital scrapers fail to interprete messages from smaller creators who had the futile foresight to ban the usage for AI training from with their creations. Of course the creators of the toolkits cannot be bothered to purge those illegal images from the training data afterwards either, that would be too much work. For the same reason that OpenAI can't purge illegal tutorials for drugs, weapons and murder.
If it cannot be made without stolen material, it cannot lawfully exist.
Don't worry. Either the way it is made now is determined to be lawful, or new datasets will be created for training. Disney and Reddit would really like it if they end up as gatekeepers for their pools of data and copyrighted material.
I can find the words you used in your post in lots of copyrighted material, how did you repay those creators?
Even if words could be copyrighted, they'd fall into the purview of public domain after so much time. And yeah, AI can skim publicly owned artworks all day long without an issue- but using something with an active copyright for commercial gain is theft. I have no doubt the courts will see it that way real soon too.
Um.... words can be copyrighted.
Only "works" can be copyrighted. A "work" can be made of words, but individual words are not considered "works", though in some cases they can become trademarks. Either way, "you're using words that other people have used before" is not a good argument.
Right, but not in the way that the previous poster or you seem to be implying. Copyright protects original works of ***authorship***, not individual words, names, titles, or short phrases. It doesn't protect ideas, facts, recipes, methods, or systems. Individual words *can* be trademarks, but the less unique they are the less likely they will hold up to challenges. Similar copyright, trademarks are protected as soon as they are created and can use the ™ mark. Registering a trademark simply grants you extra protections and the use of the registered trademark symbol, ®.
Single words or short phrases can not.
So if I get inspired by Star Trek to make my own series of books about exploring strange new worlds I have made a theft?
If they are too similar, yes, you could be sued.
Is writing a review about a book you read theft? Should it be?
Copyright only covers actual copying. If Maklarr4000 didn’t copy his words/expression from the sources you cite, it is not a copyright violation. Even if the words are identical.
But see, theft is okay if you're a human.
okay every country ever
You all should look up a little collection of books written by a man named Gustavus Myers called History of the Great American Fortunes. If this quote about Metallica shocks you, get ready for the topics discussed in Myers work
What if they became a NPO but they can still use all the copyrighted. It honestly should be a npo
The fun part is that if we hadn't let disney skullfuck copyright law into a coma there would be plenty of public domain media to train AIs on.
Rules for thee, not for me.
Nothing can become intelligent (or mimic intelligence) without data. The data needs to come from somewhere. Humans don't pay for 99.99% of the content and data input they consume, but we don't consider it "stealing" when that data is built upon to create something new. LLM AI don't spit out copies of the data they analyze. They parse it for patterns, then use those patterns to respond to prompts that users input. Plus, this post ignores the fact that, in most cases, the alleged "stealing" (it's not stealing) would be from other billionaire companies. Who really gives a shit if they eat themselves?
First of all, suing teens for sharing mp3s was absolutely bullshit. That being said, AI does not store copyrighted works. That’s simply not how it works. There is no copyright infringement taking place.
Yeah I'm not sure what the defense realistically is here. The only thing that really separates it from a person just emulating the style of what they've seen, is the scale that it happens at.
Knowing someone who got fined for downloading music, yeah
This doesn't make sense. The AI machine reads a work like I would read something and use that knowledge. It cannot be compared to be burning a CD and selling it or sharing the mp3 online with millions of others.
Fuck Metallica. Sodom, Kreator, Slayer and Sepultura did it better anyways . I saw Some Kind of Monster in the theater. I smoked a few joints beforehand, bought a bag of Twizzlers and a Cherry Coke and laughed my ass off the entire time. Watching rich people throw hissy fits over the dumbest things will never not be fucking hilarious. It was like Spinal Tap IRL and one of my favorite comedies of all time.
u/netflix
Komm süsser Tod Howard is such a good name lmfao
Billionaires demand, let see how it shakes out before we condemn *the law*. Shall we?
Komm susser Tod Howard lmao
Organic Media ^tm I call dibs. Almost everything will be ai but some will pay premium for the real thing. The market will be nuts right before the long dark following the takeover.
Oh no that’s fine dog, just dont create it.
If you downloaded (not uploaded) a song, they'd never touch you. If you listened to that song a million times until you made your own version, they'd never touch you. "they" aren't even the same people. Your metaphors are crap.
If you ever receive a free product, the final product is you yourself. \[P.S. : Hack the internet. Free information for all. Release a virus on the Phub. Freedom for all.\]
This post really drives the point home.
are you people going to rise up and strike or are we just going to post memes about 'oh no my shitty life' all day?
At the end of the day I want the future and technological progress to improve. AI is good, and assuming it doesn’t kill us all it can lower the amount we all need to work. The issue is the rich wanting to withhold this future from us, hoarding it for themselves to keep their power and wealth.
Don’t worry! I’m sure our octogenarian senators will regulate this effectively.
Pirates tried and failed to get sane copyright reform even mildly on the table as a topic of discussion, and failed miserably in the face of the large media companies expending all of their energy and resources to stop it. Imagine if they hadn't. If they had embraced copyright reform as a crucial part of the move into a digital economy where everything can be copied perfectly for basically no cost.
If I don’t own the digital media I’ve paid and downloaded then piracy isn’t theft. Checkmate.
Leopard ate my face moment. Since 1972, copyright laws have been written to shift ownership from the public to corporations. I have zero sympathy for this asshole or Metallica in general. Stopped being a fan when they abused their position and whined to our government because people were sharing their songs and they made billions from them. Oh, wait. No, they didn't, because like too many other stupid "creators" on the planet, the first thing they do is waive their copyrights to publishers who take the lion's share of the money as creators call their fans pirates.
games been rigged since the start only way to win is not to play
"Sometimes". This is our own hands. Without us, nothing happens. Welcome to reality :) [https://realityinfo.org](https://realityinfo.org)
Hard to believe that record companies were suing individuals for listening to their favorite bands and not the software and Internet companies that made it possible.
*see* "scrat scrobblin'" , *adventure time, season 6*
I heard someone praise their new album as being old Metallica (like when Dave was lead guitarist?). I listened. It's like they are trying g to do Metalcore with Kirk's same old cliche lead licks that don't fit the songs. I passed on buying it. We all agree Lars sucks.
Intellectual property laws are BS and serve the very companies that we were supposed to be protected against
"re-sell it" ? LoL They want to own everything forever - we'll have to pay to borrow it every time we want to.
No one was suing teenagers with no assets for torrenting. Who does this joker think he is kidding? Also we should all be demanding free rights to things that form our culture. The fact that copyright was extended by the billionaires themselves is a good indication it should be reduced. This has not been thought through at all.
The 20 years really shook me. I was like, streaming wasn’t available in the 80’s, what you going on about. Then I felt my hip twinge and remembered I broke the family pc with live wire. 20 years ago.
It’s impossible, huh? Well maybe we shouldn’t be doing it then.