固定されたツイート
Jeff
3.3K posts
Jeff
@cypherhat
Human in favor of humans NOT bombing humans. Also, in favor of non-humans NOT bombing humans.
Pylesville, MD 参加日 Temmuz 2011
1.7K フォロー中332 フォロワー
@nrcaldwell @davidclowery all a result of the financialization of music copyrights as a long term asset class
English
How is anti-artist that my copyright last LOA +70 years verses a hard 28 years?
The song low is 35 years old. I would not have recieved the last 7 years of music publishing royalties. The label and the streaming services would just keep that money.
How does the artist not benefit. Clearly explain to me the 2nd and 3rd order benefits I am missing.
Jeff@cypherhat
@davidclowery @moskowitz I have no problem with that either. I have a problem with the length of the lifetime of the asset. The 2nd/3rd order effects of that are anti-artist and anti-market
English
@nrcaldwell @davidclowery 3rd order effect of long term copyright: reduction in number of working musicians. increase in the development of technology to exploit the margins between cost of production/advertising/distribution and eventually obviate musicians due to ai.
English
@nrcaldwell @davidclowery 1st order effect of long term copyright: creates income stream for asset owner its term and creates a brand new asset class.
2nd order effect of long term copyright: creates a power law dynamic where assets are centrally accumulated.
...
English
@davidclowery Haven't gotten off the bottle evidently...
Ok, Mr. Professor, tell me how the per capita population of musicians correlates to the length of copyright since 1900?
Each extension of this term was driven by publishers not artists, fwiw - asset accumulators.
I'll wait
English
“I just hoped for a decent conversation”
Like I said. If I wanted to be gaslit by someone helping other people steal my stuff I’d go back to dating coke head strippers.
Jeff@cypherhat
@davidclowery It didn't take long. Nobody's feelings are hurt. I just hoped for a decent conversation (thus the "trigger") about what the real problem was. Is it that Anthropic owes Lowery money?
English
@davidclowery And anything that “deprives a citizen of the United States of his liberty or property … could hardly be dignified with the name of due process of law.”
Right?
English
@cypherhat You have a monopoly on your house, You have a monopoly on your personal labor. You have a monopoloy on your person via personality rights.
English
Try to stay on topic. That’s not the argument. You’re doing what people do when they can’t admit that they never thought through the 2nd and 3rd order effects of their positions.
Dude I can do this all day. I have similar discussions 8 times a week a week in my UGA classes.
Jeff@cypherhat
@davidclowery You are being silly now. Intellectual "property" is a really just a euphemism compared to real physical property.
English
@davidclowery It didn't take long.
Nobody's feelings are hurt.
I just hoped for a decent conversation (thus the "trigger") about what the real problem was.
Is it that Anthropic owes Lowery money?
English
@cypherhat Oh poor baby. Now you got your feelings hurt? You came into this looking for a fight. Fucking crybully.
English
Jeff@cypherhat
@moskowitz @davidclowery Why is it that people constantly misread and then attribute to me things I haven't said. I said people's perception of AI music is: holy fuck, how did it do that? And earlier I said, I have no issue with AI companies licensing the rights to music. My argument is about time
ZXX
@davidclowery I am not clear on your argument here, tbh.
There is a a lot of subtlety in what is happening with AI music and possible resultant revenue streams.
My argument is about the length of copyright as part of the mechanism that can be tuned for better outcomes.
English
As far a song copyrights go, the compulsory license already allows covers, ie different versions, editions and performances. All this would do is cut off my pay for the work and allow broadcasters, streaming services and other distributors keep the money. You got spell this out better.
English
@davidclowery If you, individually? Or if the industry evolved with 14+14?
English
@cypherhat Put it the other way. If I didn't have those 7 years of copyright how would that create more artists?
English
@moskowitz @davidclowery Who is arguing for unfettered use?
You are arguing against yourself.
I am arguing that AI companies should pay licenses.
I am also arguing that copyright length be returned to 14+14.
English
@cypherhat @davidclowery Just bc “people’s perception” is that AI is “magic” is not an argument for unfettered use of copyrighted works. The AI co.s ARE NOT LICENSING they are Stealing. At least, Napster had an index they had to show. AI co.s deny & lie about their activities.
English
What long term good is gained by AI companies having free access to my songs and catalog? Does the world not have enough recordings and songs? Does it cure cancer? You haven’t told me why it’s in anyone’s interest? Yet you seem to be relentlessly advocating for it. Or at least excusing the rapacious behavior. So hence I’m assuming that you have some sort of quasi religious outcome in mind. It feels like eschatology.
Jeff@cypherhat
@davidclowery I think you argue from a assumptive position: that I am an AI utopian? I am not. My argument is more about mechanism design - power laws are unavoidable, so fix the timing of the engine: AI benefits from the capture of catalogs due to copyrights being long term assets.
English
@davidclowery Says the expert on 2nd and 3rd order effects...
Shorter terms increase the rate at which works enter the public domain, which increases the number of competing editions, adaptations, performances, artists, etc.
But that is just economics, right?
English
@cypherhat How does it create an environment where there are less artists? That makes no sense. How does the mechanism work?
English
@moskowitz @davidclowery Why is it that people constantly misread and then attribute to me things I haven't said.
I said people's perception of AI music is: holy fuck, how did it do that?
And earlier I said, I have no issue with AI companies licensing the rights to music.
My argument is about time
English
@cypherhat @davidclowery But that’s not even accurate. AI does not “create”. If you think AI creates, maybe revisit that before telling copyright holders & other creatives about their property rights.
English
@georgejohnson @moskowitz @davidclowery Your arguments are incoherent and merely against the person. Childish
English
@cypherhat @moskowitz @davidclowery Jeff has never created anything. He just takes like Blackrock and Seagrams.
English
@davidclowery @moskowitz I have no problem with that either.
I have a problem with the length of the lifetime of the asset. The 2nd/3rd order effects of that are anti-artist and anti-market
English
@cypherhat @moskowitz I have no problem with AI companies licensing music under private contract and competing against my work.
English
@davidclowery @moskowitz Preen away, just like people who whined about synthesizers, sampling, or Napster... or Robbie Robertson's guitar...
AI isn't going away - you don't even seem to understand the nature of 2nd/3rd order effects.
My argument is: reduce copyright term and 2nd/3rd effects are better.
English
@cypherhat @moskowitz It doesn’t. But AI can only do this by copying existing work and creating derivative works of other works. Its only value is a poor substitute for other works, that free rides on the work of others. It mugs the invisible hand.
English
@davidclowery omg.
Now you are arguing that the word "implementation" is sufficiently distinct from the word "expression" so as to be able to be ignored?
English
@cypherhat Which is not expression. You might be thinking of patents? Would be closer to what you describe.
English
Copyright is not a monopoly on ideas. It secures human expression. Go back to your law school textbooks on expression vs ideas. If it did grant a monopoly on ideas that would be bad. But it does not. You should and I suspect do know better but you are operating in bad faith. Also I’ve attached the historic Anglo-American law dictionary definition of property. No mention of property being physical.
Jeff@cypherhat
@georgejohnson @davidclowery Copyright is state-granted monopoly on the implementation of a set of ideas. It is not real physical property.
English
@davidclowery I have not changed my argument. My argument was always about copyright.
English
Jeff you’re losing. You’ve changed your argument to the term of copyright.
Jeff@cypherhat
@moskowitz @davidclowery How does society benefit from 120 year state-granted monopolies? The argument has never been: AI should be allowed to steal IP. Nah, lawyers will eventually close the "fair use" loophole. The argument is simply the length of the copyright is too long.
English
@davidclowery @moskowitz How does AI generating that content change that equation?
Assume for a moment that the licensing issue is resolved.
English
@cypherhat @moskowitz You mean aside from All the books, movies, music and video games the public voluntarily and happily consumes?
English