“Suno’s training data includes essentially all music files of reasonable quality that are accessible on the open internet.”

“Rather than trying to argue that Suno was not trained on copyrighted songs, the company is instead making a Fair Use argument to say that the law should allow for AI training on copyrighted works without permission or compensation.”

Archived (also bypass paywall): https://archive.ph/ivTGs

    • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      3 months ago

      Because it manufactures scarcity and causes us to repeatedly expend energy reproducing things that could be otherwise copied and enjoyed at near-zero cost.

      We keep inventing silly rules in order to put off dealing with the existential threat our mode of production represents. “Copyright” is the first and silliest of those rules.

      • Creat@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Are you taking about patents? Cause a world without copyright doesn’t sound very fun to me. Or anyone in a remotely creative job.

        Ever for patents: There’s a reason innovations are protected literally anywhere in the world, but the durations being ever longer is a real problem (5 years would probably be fine). The basic concept is still just straight up necessary.

        • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          No, i’m talking about all intellectual works (copyrights and patents being some of the categories commonly used)

          Humans need no incentive to create new works, but the way we distribute resources requires us to make these rules so that those creators fit within our ‘work for food’ production model.

          Even a modest UBI would support most creative endeavors, but instead of that we have a “monetize your work or starve” arrangement.

          • Creat@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            I agree that the current state of laws is overkill by about an order of magnitude, and that’s obviously bad.

            But you do need some amount of protection for works created. Imagine being a photographer, you can’t make money. You make some nice photos, and how do you sell them? If you send a sample to someone, they can just print that and you can do nothing. There’s no copyright after all. It isn’t somthing you can protect legally, so you can’t stop them or sue them for compensation. There’s also a flip side from the corporate perspective: You might find employment as a full time photographer in places that need them, but what about all the companies that just need an occasional picture? You can’t contract it out, because you have no way to negotiate anything if their work isn’t protected, you can’t even look at samples cause nobody would ever dare showing any or they might just be used.

            • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              Humans need no incentive to create new works, but the way we distribute resources requires us to make these rules so that those creators fit within our ‘work for food’ production model.