RIAA is evil. AI is good for us plebs while it’s still legal for us to own and operate our own local open source LLMs away from the corpos, in the same way the internet is a net good because it’s free and open and gives us power to practice communism (information sharing, hacking (classic meaning) and open source).
All regulation will be aimed squarely at destroying that, concentrating power in the hands of the few away from just any old proletariat tom dick and harry.
Corpos will pay any fees and fines as a cost of doing business and acquire all licenses and reach private agreements with publishers out of reach for the common man or small business, all the while passing the cost of all this onto the consumer eventually just to invest in tech that will make the line go up for a few more quarters.
IP law does not benefit you and you will never truly benefit from it.
Don’t simp for corpos.
P.S.: Imagine the next LLM, 10-20 years from now is truly groundbreaking and useful, it’s a new tool, and without that tool, you’re no longer competitive for work, and all of said tool is owned by 1-2 multinational predatory conglomerates jacking up prices, because you have no choice but to pay up to live. It’s cyberpunk, just boring and without the implants, price-gouging a necessity just as they do now with housing or insulin.
We need to preserve the power to do this freely, fairly, without profit and without licensing works.
Is RIAA wanting full control over the AU tech or do they want AI to be banned from music completely? Their stance will dictate who I support between two massive evils
I think it’s pretty clear they want to own it, not ban it.
First, they will use the rights of artists to gather popular and lawmaker support in their war against AI-content, then big labels will integrate it to turn around and screw creators over. It’s a classic.
They’re usually always propping up their whole operation on a series of open source wooden carts they picked up off the Internet. Those carts are the foundation that makes everything work.
As we saw a couple months ago, a core part of how Internet security works had a giant hole in it, and it was all because one dude had some kind of mental breakdown and handed off development to an attacker.
Even by your analogy, yes I’d rather have a wooden cart compared to carrying things in my hands.
That said your analogy doesn’t apply to tech. “It just doesn’t okay” isn’t a very satisfying answer from a logic standpoint, but as the other user pointed out almost all corporate software is built upon, or massively, and I mean massively relies upon the efforts of Open Source software.
I can’t really think of any other industry like this or an analogy for this, but that is how it works. Example: GNU/Linux is FOSS, and is the go-to for server software for businesses, and it’s starting to creep into end user products too, from Dell laptops to Raspberry Pi to the Steam Deck (if you’re familiar with that - Proton is also open source).
Its honestly sad how many people I see on Lemmy cheering on corporate IP law because GRRM is pissed off at not getting a few million more royalties by being included in a training set.
I was surprised it took them this long. But this just means that labels want to own AI songmaking, this is not good for creators or listeners either. Rick Beato was talking about this today:
GOOD
No, BAD.
RIAA is evil. AI is good for us plebs while it’s still legal for us to own and operate our own local open source LLMs away from the corpos, in the same way the internet is a net good because it’s free and open and gives us power to practice communism (information sharing, hacking (classic meaning) and open source).
All regulation will be aimed squarely at destroying that, concentrating power in the hands of the few away from just any old proletariat tom dick and harry.
Corpos will pay any fees and fines as a cost of doing business and acquire all licenses and reach private agreements with publishers out of reach for the common man or small business, all the while passing the cost of all this onto the consumer eventually just to invest in tech that will make the line go up for a few more quarters.
IP law does not benefit you and you will never truly benefit from it.
Don’t simp for corpos.
P.S.: Imagine the next LLM, 10-20 years from now is truly groundbreaking and useful, it’s a new tool, and without that tool, you’re no longer competitive for work, and all of said tool is owned by 1-2 multinational predatory conglomerates jacking up prices, because you have no choice but to pay up to live. It’s cyberpunk, just boring and without the implants, price-gouging a necessity just as they do now with housing or insulin.
We need to preserve the power to do this freely, fairly, without profit and without licensing works.
Is RIAA wanting full control over the AU tech or do they want AI to be banned from music completely? Their stance will dictate who I support between two massive evils
I think it’s pretty clear they want to own it, not ban it.
First, they will use the rights of artists to gather popular and lawmaker support in their war against AI-content, then big labels will integrate it to turn around and screw creators over. It’s a classic.
I guess my support goes to AI companies this time, even though I don’t like it.
LLM’s LOL but you do understand that you can have only that little wooden cart while they are driving all the Ferraris and Porsches, don’t you?
still better than not having anything while they’d still drive all those supercars
They’re usually always propping up their whole operation on a series of open source wooden carts they picked up off the Internet. Those carts are the foundation that makes everything work.
As we saw a couple months ago, a core part of how Internet security works had a giant hole in it, and it was all because one dude had some kind of mental breakdown and handed off development to an attacker.
Which vuln was this?
https://theintercept.com/2024/04/03/linux-hack-xz-utils-backdoor/
Ty
Even by your analogy, yes I’d rather have a wooden cart compared to carrying things in my hands.
That said your analogy doesn’t apply to tech. “It just doesn’t okay” isn’t a very satisfying answer from a logic standpoint, but as the other user pointed out almost all corporate software is built upon, or massively, and I mean massively relies upon the efforts of Open Source software.
I can’t really think of any other industry like this or an analogy for this, but that is how it works. Example: GNU/Linux is FOSS, and is the go-to for server software for businesses, and it’s starting to creep into end user products too, from Dell laptops to Raspberry Pi to the Steam Deck (if you’re familiar with that - Proton is also open source).
Its honestly sad how many people I see on Lemmy cheering on corporate IP law because GRRM is pissed off at not getting a few million more royalties by being included in a training set.
I was surprised it took them this long. But this just means that labels want to own AI songmaking, this is not good for creators or listeners either. Rick Beato was talking about this today:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1bZ0OSEViyo&pp=ygUKcmljayBiZWF0bw%3D%3D (minute 6)
https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/umg-startsai-voice-clone-partnership-with-soundlabs-1235041808/
oh