• 1 Post
  • 114 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: September 2nd, 2023

help-circle





  • It is a supply and demand curve.

    The supply is incredibly small for a world-famous artist compared to their demand. If the reason some people can’t buy a ticket because there are no tickets left, there’s room to increase the price of the ticket and sell the exact same amount of tickets. If resellers can just buy all your tickets and sell them for 10x the price, then you can 10x the price of tickets and sell the same amount.

    The problem is that you can’t just use the profits from selling Taylor swift tickets to make another Taylor swift so you can increase the supply of Taylor swift.

    There are only 3 ways they can increase their Taylor swift profits: 1. Make concerts in bigger venues so they can sell more tickets. 2. Increase the ticket prices. 3. Increase the amount of Taylor swift concerts.

    1. And 3. Have upper bound limits. Specially 3. Because what incentive do multi-millionaire artists to work more? If I were so wealthy, I’d strive to work less, not more.

    The easiest option is 2. why wouldn’t they do it?

    Sure, if I was a music fan it’d suck, but the truth is that they are corporations, and they are legally required to increase the shareholders’ value.


  • We need to differentiate between those cases because they are 2 distinct cases. And they are very different.

    They don’t even have the same purpose. The purpose of a human learning is: fulfill a desire to learn or acquiring a new skill that will be useful to fulfill another desire. The purpose of AI learning is: increase the value of the model so it can be sold for more.

    Lemmy is not an entity that is capable of thought. And I’m not Lemmy. I’m just another person and what you are reading is my opinion.

    “Publishers are bad and greedy, therefore everything that hurts them is good for society” is a childish take imo. Not everything is black and white. Copyright exists for a reason. Just removing it won’t make the world better. A law being flawed doesn’t make it worse than not existing.




  • So because you don’t understand it, everything it does should be legal?

    It’s not rare maths. There are trns of thousands of AI experts. And most CS graduates (millions) have a good understanding on how they work, just not the specifics of the maths.

    Yeah, they’re not selling a copy, they are just selling a subscription to a copying machine loaded with the information needed to make a copy. Totally different.

    I should start a business of printers and attach a USB with the PNG of a dollar bill. And of course my printers won’t have any government mandated firmware that disables printing fake money.

    I’m not printing fake money! It’s my clients! Totally legal.




  • If the solution is making the output non-copyrighted it fixes nothing. You can sell the pirating machine on a subscription. And it’s not like Netflix where the content ends when the subscription ends, you have already downloaded all the not-copyrighted content you wanted, and the internet would be full of non-copyrighted AI output.

    Instead of selling the bee movie, you sell a bee movie maker, and a spiderman maker, and a titanic maker.

    Sure, file a copyright infringement each time you manage to make an AI output copyrighted content. Just run it on a loop and it’s a money making machine. That’s fine by me.