"The Big Three – who own 70% of all music ever recorded, thanks to an orgy of mergers – make up the shortfall from these low per-stream rates with guaranteed payments and promo."
#CoryDoctorow, 2024
https://pluralistic.net/2024/10/19/gander-sauce/
Cory reminds us, once again, that a handful of megacorps owning an entire industry isn't a weird exception unique to digital tech. Ownership by a handful of megacorps is what *every* industry looks like now.
"The US Copyright Office has issued a series of rulings, upheld by the courts, asserting that nothing made by an AI can be copyrighted. By statute and international treaty, copyright is a right reserved for works of human creativity."
#CoryDoctorow, 2024
https://pluralistic.net/2024/10/19/gander-sauce/
Well that is good news.
- replies
- 0
- announces
- 0
- likes
- 1
@strypey Hmmm ... any author who's ever used a spell checker, grammar checker, anything like that, had better keep really quiet about it ...
@TimWardCam
> any author who's ever used a spell checker, grammar checker, anything like that, had better keep really quiet about it
Hilarious. There probably are people who think this argument actually flies. Of course we both know there's a huge, glaring difference between those tools and having a Trained MOLE write it for you. With those tools, the human is still the initiator of the work, *and* the final arbiter of every word that goes into it.
@strypey and one more reason to use for "why we shouldn't allow 'AI' in our work environment?"
@mensrea
> one more reason to use for "why we shouldn't allow 'AI' in our work environment?"
Especially in a work environment that produces software. It just occurred to me that this means source code to any software written by a Trained MOLE would be in the public domain. Proprietary licenses and ToS wouldn't apply. Free licenses, whether copyleft or otherwise, wouldn't apply. Neither would Source Available licenses.
Cripes.
(1/2)
(2/2)
How would you prove in a court of law that source code was written by an AI? What happens if a person has prompted an AI to write code and then tweaked it? Or vice-versa?
@strypey Yes, I am well aware that writing useful laws is difficult (I've done some), which results in a lot of detail that doesn't surface in the headlines.
@TimWardCam
> a lot of detail that doesn't surface in the headlines
I'd like to know more. Links please so I can do the reading?
@strypey Pick a new law, any new law. Read the headline. Read the law. Observe that the law takes thousands of times as many words as the headline, and includes things like unexpected definitions of some of the words used, special cases, exceptions, and so on.
@TimWardCam
> Observe that the law takes thousands of times as many words as the headline, and includes things like unexpected definitions of some of the words used, special cases, exceptions, and so on
The link in my OP is from an article by Cory Doctorow, who works for the EFF. An organisation that employs lawyers to make sure advocates like Cory have their facts straight in their public statements.
You going to get to the point, or just keeping spitting at me and claiming its raining?