I’ve generally been against giving AI works copyright, but this article presented what I felt were compelling arguments for why I might be wrong. What do you think?

  • its not necessarily common, but its weird to make this kind of point while using a platform that works by the exact principles i’m describing lol. open source projects are very frequently built from community support and public funding alone, and the people building them seem to be fine with their jobs.

    •  FlowVoid   ( @FlowVoid@midwest.social ) 
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      They are fine with their jobs because they have other jobs that pay them.

      Your idea would mean the end of professional musicians. Music performance would be mainly for people with lots of leisure time, something rich people would do as a hobby. Like playing polo.

      • i don’t know what to tell you man. not everybody who develops open source projects for a living does it in their free time. for a lot of projects, particularly the big ones, there is full time development staff.

        but i’m sorry, the thing you’re describing, music performance being out of reach for everybody but the rich? uhh… that is how things are right now. lots of musicians are struggling to afford touring, even the very wealthy ones, and tours often don’t do much more than break even. its gotten worse in recent years, too, as large corporations monopolize venue spaces and independent artists are pushed further and further into the margins. musicians have been talking about how much the live-music industry is fucked for a long time. its almost like the problems you’re imagining would occur under a different system are exactly how it works under this one.