Spotify just changed their TOS, giving them unprecedented rights to create "derivative works" from audiobooks

gedaliyah@lemmy.world to Technology@lemmy.world – 778 points –
Spotify Modifies Terms for Audiobook Rightsholders, Changes May Put Authors in Legal Peril With Narrators
storyfair.net

They frame it as though it's for user content, more likely it's to train AI, but in fact it gives them the right to do almost anything they want - up to (but not including) stealing the content outright.

78

You are viewing a single comment

This will be an unpopular opinion here.

I'm not against AI but the rules have to be in laws and regulations. First, AI can't use copyrighted material without paying for it. It can't either use material without asking individually.

The second point is that AI can't created copyrighted material. Whatever an AI created, it's free of copyright and everyone can use it.

Third, an AI can't be a blackbox. It has to be comprehensive how it works and what the AI is doing. A solution would be to have source available code.

Fourth, AI can't violate laws, create and push misinformation, and material used for misinforming.

And, of course, anything created using AI has to be indentified as such.

The money is in what the AI can do, the quality of the result, and the quality of the code. All the other things isn't valuable.

Your third point is an active research topic, we can’t explain exactly what generative (and other) models do beyond their generic operation.

If we could explain it, it would just be another rules engine 😅

I'm fine with this as long as the "pay & ask" has an exception for non-commercial, open source projects, otherwise it would mean that only corpos can create models, and everyone else is SOL and thoroughly fucked, because they will pay a license fee to the platforms, and the platforms will just add a new TOS element that by using the platform you consent and withdraw your rights to compensation.

I imagine that if AI devs didn't sneak around copying people's works in bulk but instead asked for permission or paid for a license, artists wouldn't hate it like they do now.

My gut feeling says that's not entirely true. Generative AI has so many qualities that make could it offensive to so many people, I think we were going to see a pushback from artists regardless. The devs' shitty training practices just happened to give the artists a particularly strong case for grievances.

Yeah artists were fine with publishing companies doing this since the dawn of literacy but this time it is completely different

8 more...