#copyright alliance

[deepdreamnights]

Of course, everyone who actually knows how the tech work and how IP works has been saying this from the start.

The question is, why has this argument not been more widely disseminated. You'd think the critics would want to bring it up preemptively to demonstrate why their reasoning negates that point.

It is wild how frequently my posts on this get responses like "I've never heard anyone present this case, interesting." because my points aren't 'out there' and I'm not a genius. But not too wild, because every major argument thrown against AI has been based on complete misinformation.

The power use numbers and concerns were heavily manipulated, going so far as to blame all increased datacenter use on AI.

The technology has been presented as 'push button, get final result' but it does not work that way. Every good gen you've seen was curated and likely edited. Every shitty gen used to show how AI is evil and stealing has also been curated.

The claims of theft depended on misunderstandings of copyright and misunderstandings of how generative AI works.

The technology was represented commonly as a 'collage machine' that would reach out to the web and snatch parts of pictures to blend together. This is not how any of this works.

Glaze, Nightshade, and Artshield are all frauds.

Most users of generative AI use it as a toy rather than a means to replace art commissions. Impact on art commissions is anecdotal, and the position that every AI gen was a stolen commission was literally the same argument the RIAA used when suing Napster grandmas for millions.

AI was represented as the primary strike issue for the writers and actors' guilds, and was represented as a binary yes/no option. This was not the case, and the unions didn't want to ban AI use, but to make it an optional tool for the writer/artist to use if they desire, and they won that.

Workplace replacement by major entertainment corps, while a real issue, would not be addressed by regulation. Megacorps like Disney and Nintendo have enough material to create their own internal datasets. Labor action is how you solve this problem, and the guilds already took those steps.

And those are just the big ones. Even the little hullabaloos are rife with lies and misinformation.

These kinds of talking points have to start someplace, and I'm pretty sure that place is the copyright alliance.

A supposed nonprofit that works for the likes of Disney to expand the power they have over media and "intellectual property." What the heritage foundation is for Christian Nationalism, the Copyright Alliance is for Media Consolidation.

The same people are going after archive.org.

An honest critic would come forward with honest arguments and address the oppositions counterpoints. But instead we see arguments crafted to keep things as angry and heated as possible.

When an arguement is debunked, the base assumptions are never addressed, another argument is simply put in its place. When the copyright argument doesn't get traction, all of a sudden its about power use. Power use gets debunked and we've got people talking about chains of provenance for ideas.

Each time the policy prescription is something that would greatly advantage the Disneys, RIAAs, Adobes and Nintendos of the world and expand their power at the expense fair use and everyone else.

And as they say, the system's results are its purpose.

Am I saying that it's likely that the Copyright Alliance and their corporate backers are using R.J. Palmer and his pals to manipulate people worried about new technology into becoming a reactionary mob to further their own economic advantage?

Yes. And if they aren't, then the end results are exactly the same regardless.

If you hate AI, and the reasons you started hating AI are all debunked arguments, but you still hold that position, you might want to evaluate that position from square one with the new information. And while you're at it, you might consider why the people that told you the misinfo didn't think it was important enough to check for accuracy before sending out, yet imperative enough that it demanded immediate rage and action.

Yes, the AI companies are all out to make money (they're companies, after all). So are the people "opposing" them. Just because OpenAI sucks doesn't mean that Adobe has your best interests at heart.

And notice who they sue. Midjourney (the most popular public generator, and one that appears to be funded solely by subs and not VC cash) and Stable Diffusion, the free, open-source version of the tech.

It's fair use for me, lawsuits for thee.

Edit: Fixed Links.

Quoted Tweet:

Like yeah, it might be the case that fair use comes in. It's just that it hasn't yet. Look at the lawsuit over Github Copilot. Basically all of the claims about infringement on outputs were thrown out because they can't prove that code is reproduced....

Me:

right, this is the thing everyone is missing about the ai shit which is why all their cases keep getting basically thrown out of court - copyright infringement happens on output, not on input. the most compelling arguments i've seen are centered around DMCA (...)

i.e, that the people building datasets are doing so by circumventing DRM. but anything about fair use and shit is putting the cart before the horse because the model is self-evidently not infringing on anything... it's not, like... a picture, or a story or whatever. it's numbers

that's the hurdle they have to jump when trying to argue that the model is infringing - you have to prove that this model (NOT ITS OUTPUTS), just by itself, is copyright infringement on your images/words/whatever. and since it's a stack of numbers that's... proving to be hard!

if you wanted to sue someone for infringing your copyright with stable diffusion you have to wait for them to infringe your copyright first, like generating an illegal mickey mouse, and then sue THAT PERSON. but they're trying to short circuit the process - suing the paintbrush

[opha]

i'm joining the war on "AI" on the side of the "AI"

[gme-news]

Jamal Murray Reacts To Their Lost Against Miami Heat Game 2 NBA Finals

via IFTTT

[worldipday]

WOMEN TRAILBLAZERS CREATING SUCCESS THROUGH COPYRIGHT.

The Copyright Alliance, in collaboration with the U.S. Copyright Office, the Copyright Society, the Global Innovation Policy Center (GIPC), the U.S. Intellectual Property Alliance, and numerous Volunteer Lawyers for the Arts (VLA) organizations across the country, will host a World Intellectual Property Day (WIPD) 2023 event titled Women Trailblazers Creating Success Through Copyright on Wednesday, April 26 from 2-3:30 p.m. ET. This virtual panel is in keeping with the World Intellectual Property Organization’s (WIPO) 2023 theme, Women and IP: Accelerating Innovation and Creativity. Join us to hear from inspiring women who will discuss how copyright has helped them to advance their careers and protect and distribute their and others’ creative works. Attendees will also learn the steps they can take to forge their own career path by protecting their creativities as well as their livelihoods. Our panel moderator is Karyn A. Temple, Former Register of Copyrights and SEVP & Global General Counsel at the Motion Picture Association; and our panelists are Jayda Imanlihen, Founder of the Black Girl Film School; Alicia Calzada, Deputy General Counsel for the National Press Photographers Association; Tristen Norman, Director, Creative Insights, Getty Images; and Miriam Lord, Associate Register of Copyrights and Director of Public Information and Education at the U.S. Copyright Office. Don’t miss this unique opportunity to gain insights and advice from leading women in the creative and copyright industries. VLA Cohosts: California Lawyers for the Arts Carolina Lawyers for the Arts & Entertainment Chicago Lawyers for the Creative Arts Colorado Attorneys for the Arts Georgia Lawyers for the Arts Maryland Volunteer Lawyers for the Arts New York Volunteer Lawyers for the Arts Oregon Volunteer Lawyers for the Arts St. Louis Volunteer Lawyers and Accountants for the Arts Texas Accountants and Lawyers for the Arts The Ella Project Washington Area Lawyers for the Arts.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Holy CRAP the UN Cybercrime Treaty is a nightmare

Support me this summer on the Clarion Write-A-Thon and help raise money for the Clarion Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers' Workshop!

If there's one thing I learned from all my years as an NGO delegate to UN specialized agencies, it's that UN treaties are dangerous, liable to capture by unholy alliances of authoritarian states and rapacious global capitalists.

Most of my UN work was on copyright and "paracopyright," and my track record was 2:0; I helped kill a terrible treaty (the WIPO Broadcast Treaty) and helped pass a great one (the Marrakesh Treaty on the rights of people with disabilities to access copyrighted works):

https://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/marrakesh/

It's been many years since I had to shave and stuff myself into a suit and tie and go to Geneva, and I don't miss it – and thankfully, I have colleagues who do that work, better than I ever did. Yesterday, I heard from one such EFF colleague, Katitza Rodriguez, about the Cybercrime Treaty, which is about to pass, and which is, to put it mildly, terrifying:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/07/un-cybercrime-draft-convention-dangerously-expands-state-surveillance-powers

Look, cybercrime is a real thing, from pig butchering to ransomware, and there's real, global harms that can be attributed to it. Cybercrime is transnational, making it hard for cops in any one jurisdiction to handle it. So there's a reason to think about formal international standards for fighting cybercrime.

But that's not what's in the Cybercrime Treaty.

Here's a quick sketch of the significant defects in the Cybercrime Treaty.

The treaty has an extremely loose definition of cybercrime, and that looseness is deliberate. In authoritarian states like China and Russia (whose delegations are the driving force behind this treaty), "cybercrime" has come to mean "anything the government disfavors, if you do it with a computer." "Cybercrime" can mean online criticism of the government, or professions of religious belief, or material supporting LGBTQ rights.

Nations that sign up to the Cybercrime Treaty will be obliged to help other nations fight "cybercrime" – however those nations define it. They'll be required to provide surveillance data – for example, by forcing online services within their borders to cough up their users' private data, or even to pressure employees to install back-doors in their systems for ongoing monitoring.

These obligations to aid in surveillance are mandatory, but much of the Cybercrime Treaty is optional. What's optional? The human rights safeguards. Member states "should" or "may" create standards for legality, necessity, proportionality, non-discrimination, and legitimate purpose. But even if they do, the treaty can oblige them to assist in surveillance orders that originate with other states that decided not to create these standards.

When that happens, the citizens of the affected states may never find out about it. There are eight articles in the treaty that establish obligations for indefinite secrecy regarding surveillance undertaken on behalf of other signatories. That means that your government may be asked to spy on you and the people you love, they may order employees of tech companies to backdoor your account and devices, and that fact will remain secret forever. Forget challenging these sneak-and-peek orders in court – you won't even know about them:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/06/un-cybercrime-draft-convention-blank-check-unchecked-surveillance-abuses

Now here's the kicker: while this treaty creates broad powers to fight things governments dislike, simply by branding them "cybercrime," it actually undermines the fight against cybercrime itself. Most cybercrime involves exploiting security defects in devices and services – think of ransomware attacks – and the Cybercrime Treaty endangers the security researchers who point out these defects, creating grave criminal liability for the people we rely on to warn us when the tech vendors we rely upon have put us at risk.

This is the granddaddy of tech free speech fights. Since the paper tape days, researchers who discovered defects in critical systems have been intimidated, threatened, sued and even imprisoned for blowing the whistle. Tech giants insist that they should have a veto over who can publish true facts about the defects in their products, and dress up this demand as concern over security. "If you tell bad guys about the mistakes we made, they will exploit those bugs and harm our users. You should tell us about those bugs, sure, but only we can decide when it's the right time for our users and customers to find out about them."

When it comes to warnings about the defects in their own products, corporations have an irreconcilable conflict of interest. Time and again, we've seen corporations rationalize their way into suppressing or ignoring bug reports. Sometimes, they simply delay the warning until they've concluded a merger or secured a board vote on executive compensation.

Sometimes, they decide that a bug is really a feature – like when Facebook decided not to do anything about the fact that anyone could enumerate the full membership of any Facebook group (including, for example, members of a support group for people with cancer). This group enumeration bug was actually a part of the company's advertising targeting system, so they decided to let it stand, rather than re-engineer their surveillance advertising business.

The idea that users are safer when bugs are kept secret is called "security through obscurity" and no one believes in it – except corporate executives. As Bruce Schneier says, "Anyone can design a system that is so secure that they themselves can't break it. That doesn't mean it's secure – it just means that it's secure against people stupider than the system's designer":

The history of massive, brutal cybersecurity breaches is an unbroken string of heartbreakingly naive confidence in security through obscurity:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/02/05/battery-vampire/#drained

But despite this, the idea that some bugs should be kept secret and allowed to fester has powerful champions: a public-private partnership of corporate execs, government spy agencies and cyber-arms dealers. Agencies like the NSA and CIA have huge teams toiling away to discover defects in widely used products. These defects put the populations of their home countries in grave danger, but rather than reporting them, the spy agencies hoard these defects.

The spy agencies have an official doctrine defending this reckless practice: they call it "NOBUS," which stands for "No One But Us." As in: "No one but us is smart enough to find these bugs, so we can keep them secret and use them attack our adversaries, without worrying about those adversaries using them to attack the people we are sworn to protect."

NOBUS is empirically wrong. In the 2010s, we saw a string of leaked NSA and CIA cyberweapons. One of these, "Eternalblue" was incorporated into off-the-shelf ransomware, leading to the ransomware epidemic that rages even today. You can thank the NSA's decision to hoard – rather than disclose and patch – the Eternalblue exploit for the ransoming of cities like Baltimore, hospitals up and down the country, and an oil pipeline:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EternalBlue

The leak of these cyberweapons didn't just provide raw material for the world's cybercriminals, it also provided data for researchers. A study of CIA and NSA NOBUS defects found that there was a one-in-five chance of a bug that had been hoarded by a spy agency being independently discovered by a criminal, weaponized, and released into the wild.

Not every government has the wherewithal to staff its own defect-mining operation, but that's where the private sector steps in. Cyber-arms dealers like the NSO Group find or buy security defects in widely used products and services and turn them into products – military-grade cyberweapons that are used to attack human rights groups, opposition figures, and journalists:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/10/24/breaking-the-news/#kingdom

A good Cybercrime Treaty would recognize the perverse incentives that create the coalition to keep us from knowing which products we can trust and which ones we should avoid. It would shut down companies like the NSO Group, ban spy agencies from hoarding defects, and establish an absolute defense for security researchers who reveal true facts about defects.

Instead, the Cybercrime Treaty creates new obligations on signatories to help other countries' cops and courts silence and punish security researchers who make these true disclosures, ensuring that spies and criminals will know which products aren't safe to use, but we won't (until it's too late):

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/06/if-not-amended-states-must-reject-flawed-draft-un-cybercrime-convention

A Cybercrime Treaty is a good idea, and even this Cybercrime Treaty could be salvaged. The member-states have it in their power to accept proposed revisions that would protect human rights and security researchers, narrow the definition of "cybercrime," and mandate transparency. They could establish member states' powers to refuse illegitimate requests from other countries:

https://www.eff.org/press/releases/media-briefing-eff-partners-warn-un-member-states-are-poised-approve-dangerou

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/07/23/expanded-spying-powers/#in-russia-crime-cybers-you

Image: EFF https://www.eff.org/files/banner_library/cybercrime-2024-2b.jpg

CC BY 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/us/

[amazinglyspicy]

PIRATE SAFELY!! But pirate ;)

Hello! I’ve gotten a flood of new followers thanks to an addition I made about NOT torrenting from the Pirate Bay, so I want to address it better.

If you’ve come to check my blog for more piracy resources, advice, guides, etc, then check out some of the links in this pinned!

First and Foremost, Do not do Anything without an adblocker. Ublock Origin is the best.

Resources/Wikis: 🌟Top recommendation is the Free Media Heck Yeah Wiki, frequently updated, maintained, and transparent, as well as has a welcoming community behind it if you have questions. The rest are for redundancy's sake and for anything not found in FMHY, though most Wikis on this topic tend to repeat the same info. 🌟

VPN Comparison Chart - General Rule of Thumb, DO NOT use any VPN recommended by Youtubers, influencers, or any other shill with a profit motive. Large marketing budget does not equal good privacy practices. Do your own research.

-Since both Mullvad VPN and IVPN are planned to now suspend port forwarding support, the next best choices for torrenting though a VPN seem to be AirVPN and ProtonVPN.

HOWEVER, AirVPN has no evidence of a no logging policy (aka there’s a chance they keep records of what you do on their service) and ProtonVPN has no method of anonymously signing up and use a subscription model instead of a preferable pay-as-you-go model. So take that as you will.

(NOTE: You do not need to pay for a VPN if you are only directly downloading from a server or streaming off of websites! But it’s probably a good idea for privacy reasons anyways.)

A very good Comprehensive Torrenting Guide! -eye strain warning

And another one!

-If you torrent you need a VPN depending on how strict your government is on copyright laws. This works on a case by case basis, so I recommend looking up your own country's laws on the matter. Generally speaking, use a VPN to torrent if your country falls under The 14 Eyes Surveillance Alliance. More info on what that is Here.

A Note about Antivirus: - If you're using trusted websites, and not clicking on any ad links/fake download ads (Should be blocked by ublock), then you don't necessarily need any antivirus. Common Sense and Windows Defender should be enough to get you by. If you would like to be certain on what you are downloading is legitimate, then run your file through a virus scanner like VirusTotal. Keep in mind that when scanning cracked software some scans may flag “false positives” as the injectors used to crack the software look like malware to these scanners. Once again, the best way to avoid malware is to use trusted sites listed here and use an adblocker at all times.

If you have any questions on anything posted, need help finding things, or just need some clarification on any terms used, shoot me an ask or message! I've got a few years experience with not paying for anything I want, and LOVE to help others with this kind of stuff. But if you don't trust me, since I am a random stranger on the internet, that's fine (I wont be offended promise)! Do your own research!

INFORMATION SHOULD BE FREE!

Last updated: February 16th 2024

[deepdreamnights]

Hey, you know how I said there was nothing ethical about Adobe's approach to AI? Well whaddya know?

Adobe wants your team lead to contact their customer service to not have your private documents scraped!

This isn't the first of Adobe's always-online subscription-based products (which should not have been allowed in the first place) to have sneaky little scraping permissions auto-set to on and hidden away, but this is the first one (I'm aware of) where you have to contact customer service to turn it off for a whole team.

Now, I'm on record for saying I see scraping as fair use, and it is. But there's an aspect of that that is very essential to it being fair use: The material must be A) public facing and B) fixed published work.

All public facing published work is subject to transformative work and academic study, the use of mechanical apparatus to improve/accelerate that process does not change that principle. Its the difference between looking through someone's public instagram posts and reading through their drafts folder and DMs.

But that's not the kind of work that Adobe's interested in. See, they already have access to that work just like everyone else. But the in-progress work that Creative Cloud gives them access to, and the private work that's never published that's stored there isn't in LIAON. They want that advantage.

And that's valuable data. For an example: having a ton of snapshots of images in the process of being completed would be very handy for making an AI that takes incomplete work/sketches and 'finishes' it. That's on top of just being general dataset grist.

But that work is, definitionally, not published. There's no avenue to a fair use argument for scraping it, so they have to ask. And because they know it will be an unpopular ask, they make it a quiet op-out.

This was sinister enough when it was Photoshop, but PDF is mainly used for official documents and forms. That's tax documents, medical records, college applications, insurance documents, business records, legal documents. And because this is a server-side scrape, even if you opt-out, you have no guarantee that anyone you're sending those documents to has done so.

So, in case you weren't keeping score, corps like Adobe, Disney, Universal, Nintendo, etc all have the resources to make generative AI systems entirely with work they 'own' or can otherwise claim rights to, and no copyright argument can stop them because they own the copyrights.

They just don't want you to have access to it as a small creator to compete with them, and if they can expand copyright to cover styles and destroy fanworks they will. Here's a pic Adobe trying to do just that:

If you want to know more about fair use and why it applies in this circumstance, I recommend the Electronic Frontier Foundation over the Copyright Alliance.

[theoutcastrogue]

A copyright lawsuit filed by several major publishers puts the future of the Internet Archive's scan-and-lend library at risk. In a recent appeal, the non-profit organization argued that its solution is protected fair use and critical to preserving digital books. This position is shared by copyright scholars, the Authors Alliance, and other supporters now backing IA in court.

The Internet Archive (IA) is a non-profit organization that aims to preserve digital history for generations to come. The digital library is a staunch supporter of a free and open Internet and began meticulously archiving the web over a quarter century ago.

In addition to archiving the web, IA also operates a library that offers a broad collection of digital media, including books. Staying true to the centuries-old library concept, IA patrons can also borrow books that are scanned and digitized in-house.

Publishers vs. Internet Archive

The self-scanning service is different from the licensing deals other libraries enter into. Not all publishers are happy with IA’s approach which triggered a massive legal battle two years ago.

Publishers Hachette, HarperCollins, John Wiley, and Penguin Random House filed a lawsuit, equating IA’s controlled digital lending (CDL) operation to copyright infringement. Earlier this year a New York Federal court concluded that the library is indeed liable for copyright infringement.

The Court’s decision effectively put an end to IA’s self-scanning library, at least for books from the publishers in suit. However, IA is not letting this go without a fight and last week the non-profit filed its opening brief at the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, hoping to reverse the judgment.

Support from Authors Alliance

IA doesn’t stand alone in this legal battle. As the week progressed, several parties submitted amicus curiae briefs to the court supporting IA’s library. This includes the Authors Alliance.

The Authors Alliance represents thousands of members, including two Nobel Laureates, a Poet Laureate of the United States, and three MacArthur Fellows. All benefit from making their work available to a broad public.

If IA’s lending operation is outlawed, the authors fear that their books would become less accessible, allowing the major publishers to increase their power and control. The Alliance argues that the federal court failed to take the position of authors into account, focusing heavily on the publishers instead. However, the interests of these groups are not always aligned.

“Many authors strongly oppose the actions of the publishers in bringing this suit because they support libraries and their ability to innovate. Authors rely on libraries to reach readers and many are proud to have their works preserved and made available through libraries in service of the public.

“Because these publishers have such concentrated market power […], authors that want to reach wide audiences rarely have the negotiating power to retain sufficient control from publishers to independently authorize public access like that at issue here,” the Alliance adds.

This critique from the authors is not new. Hundreds of writers came out in support of IA’s digital book library at an earlier stage of this lawsuit, urging the publishers to drop their case. [...]

Copyright Scholars Back IA

In a separate amicus brief, several prominent legal and copyright scholars, many of whom hold professor titles, raise similar arguments. They believe that IA’s lending system is not that different from the physical libraries that are an integral part of culture.

“Libraries have always been free under copyright law to lend materials they own as they see fit. This is a feature of copyright law, not a bug,” the brief reads.

What is new here, is that publishers now assert full control over how their digital books are treated. Instead of allowing libraries to own copies, they have to license them, which makes it impossible to add them to the permanent archive.

“The major publishers refuse to sell digital books to libraries, forcing them to settle for restrictive licenses of digital content rather than genuine ownership. Moreover, publishers insist they can prevent libraries from scanning their lawfully purchased physical books and lending the resulting digital copies.” [...]

[communist-zombitch]

A spectre is haunting the Galaxy — the spectre of communism. All the powers of old Union have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre: Ascendant and Karrakin, Harrison and Smith-Shimano, HORUS Radicals and IPS-N police-spies.

This content pack is based on a possible future of the setting of Lancer where the Ungratefuls have joined with the Republican Houses of the Karrakin Trade Baronies to form the Crimson Federation, a socialist state fighting a protracted war against Baronic oppression and Harrison Armoury Imperialism.

This content pack is currently in beta and subject to future changes and rewrites. Spectre Over the Galaxy is not an official Lancer product; it is a third party work, and is not affiliated with Massif Press. Spectre Over the Galaxy is published via the Lancer Third Party License. Lancer is copyright Massif Press.

[facts-i-just-made-up]

how was mickey mouse created

It began with the founding of the great studios. There were 20th Century Fox, Columbia, Paramount, Warner Bros. and MGM. But they were, all of them, deceived, for another studio was made...

In the land of Hollywood, in the tar pits of La Brea, Walt Disney forged Mickey Mouse, and into this mouse he poured his greed, his avarice and his will to dominate all cinema. One studio to buy them all.

One by one, the franchises fell to the power of the mouse, but there were some who resisted. A last alliance of indie filmmakers and guilds marched against the lawyers of Disney, and on the very slopes of the Hollywood Hills, they fought for the freedom of the film industry. Victory was near, but the copyright and anti-trust machinations of the mouse could not be undone.

And I ran out of speech to compare because in LotR, there were wars and Hobbits and Gollum and shit but in reality, nobody can do squat. There are no eagles coming this time.

Cinema as we know it is dead. Enjoy the upcoming 500 channels of AI-written streaming "content."

[mybeautifulchristianjourney]

Solomon’s Prayer for Wisdom

1 Solomon made a marriage alliance with Pharaoh king of Egypt; he took Pharaoh’s daughter, and brought her into the city of David, until he had finished building his own house and the house of the Lord and the wall around Jerusalem. 2 The people were sacrificing at the high places, however, because no house had yet been built for the name of the Lord.

3 Solomon loved the Lord, walking in the statutes of David his father; only, he sacrificed and burnt incense at the high places. 4 And the king went to Gibeon to sacrifice there, for that was the great high place; Solomon used to offer a thousand burnt offerings upon that altar. 5 At Gibeon the Lord appeared to Solomon in a dream by night; and God said, “Ask what I shall give you.” 6 And Solomon said, “Thou hast shown great and steadfast love to thy servant David my father, because he walked before thee in faithfulness, in righteousness, and in uprightness of heart toward thee; and thou hast kept for him this great and steadfast love, and hast given him a son to sit on his throne this day. 7 And now, O Lord my God, thou hast made thy servant king in place of David my father, although I am but a little child; I do not know how to go out or come in. 8 And thy servant is in the midst of thy people whom thou hast chosen, a great people, that cannot be numbered or counted for multitude. 9 Give thy servant therefore an understanding mind to govern thy people, that I may discern between good and evil; for who is able to govern this thy great people?”

10 It pleased the Lord that Solomon had asked this. 11 And God said to him, “Because you have asked this, and have not asked for yourself long life or riches or the life of your enemies, but have asked for yourself understanding to discern what is right, 12 behold, I now do according to your word. Behold, I give you a wise and discerning mind, so that none like you has been before you and none like you shall arise after you. 13 I give you also what you have not asked, both riches and honor, so that no other king shall compare with you, all your days. 14 And if you will walk in my ways, keeping my statutes and my commandments, as your father David walked, then I will lengthen your days.”

15 And Solomon awoke, and behold, it was a dream. Then he came to Jerusalem, and stood before the ark of the covenant of the Lord, and offered up burnt offerings and peace offerings, and made a feast for all his servants. — 1 Kings 3:1-15 | Revised Standard Version (RSV) Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright © 1946, 1952, and 1971 the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. All rights reserved. Cross References: Genesis 15:5; Genesis 22:17; Genesis 28:16; Genesis 41:7; Leviticus 17:3; Numbers 27:17; Deuteronomy 6:5; Deuteronomy 12:2; Deuteronomy 31:2; Joshua 18:21; 1 Samuel 13:9; 2 Samuel 7:8; 1 Kings 1:48; 1 Kings 2:10; 1 Kings 4:31; 1 Kings 7:1; 2 Chronicles 1:11; Psalm 91:16; Proverbs 3:2; Daniel 2:21; Matthew 1:20; Matthew 2:13; Matthew 6:33; 1 Corinthians 8:3; Ephesians 3:20; Hebrews 5:14; James 1:5; James 4:3; 1 John 5:14-15

Read full chapter

Hymns for 1 Kings 3

[reachartwork]

Reliance on a producer-owner framework and individual property is leading artists to develop the tools that are eventually used to abuse them. The slightly batshit campaign to “support human artists” [18] posits that the best way for artists to fight back is to pay a lawyer and lobbyists to beg the government for harsher IP laws, by teaming up with the Copyright Alliance [19] — an organization whose members include representatives from Disney, Netflix, Getty, Adobe, Sony, WB, Nike… you name it.

An extremely good article about AI art from a leftist perspective. You should read this

[autumnwhistles]

Introducing Last Life SMP: The Musical

“There is an old, old tale to be told/Of green like the spruce, of crimson and gold...”

Welcome to my Last Life musical. In two acts, and 32 songs, I aim to tell the tale of the Last Life SMP in a way that’s understandable to audiences who are fans of, as well as to those unfamiliar with, the source material. Following Martyn’s eyesandears lore, and using the Watchers as a chorus,

Some things to note:

The major characters, in order of importance, are: Martyn (because I’m following his lore, because he had the easiest storyline to adapt into a narrative setting due to the lore... and because his Last Life perspective is my favourite); Scott (as the winner of Last Life); and Grian (constant foil to Martyn, plus due to the lore followed, Watcher Grian is canon – that’s too interesting to leave him by the wayside). But, everyone is featured, and every alliance has focus songs.

I’ve tried to keep everything roughly as faithful to the events of Last Life as I can, but I do tweak some timelines, omit some things, and add moments of emotional reflection. This is for cohesion and for fitting with the musical art form.

Memories of 3rd Life are canon, as they are in the series. The fact there was another ‘game’ before their current one is one of the first things mentioned in the musical, and it’s referred to multiple times throughout the course of the musical (giving ‘last life’ a double meaning). Partly because it’s important to the characters, partly because I love it too much.

This follows the headcanon (and out-of-universe truth) that 3rd Life took place in Spring and Last Life in Autumn – there will be references to this in songs.

Ideally, this would not be a sung-through musical. However, due to copyright issues (among everything else), it’ll obviously be impossible to ever stage it. So, information about each song’s place in the narrative will be given in its description, and relevant dialogue will show up in the description and on the screen.

Auditions are currently closed! I’m currently singing in all the parts, but after I’ve released all the songs in order, there will be others singing them.

Finally, though it’s not explicitly relevant to the musical, here’s a long analysis of c!Martyn I wrote – it helps understand the angle I’m coming from with his character.

Song list – and links the relevant posts – below the cut.

-Act One-

1.“Overture/Middle of Nowhere”: We’re introduced to the Last Life world by the Chorus as players spawn in. Martyn seems to hear something, but brushes it off. FINISHED.

2. “Corners of the World”: We introduce Martyn’s character and mindset, and, through him, the burgeoning alliances. COMPOSITION FINISHED, RECORDING NOT.

3. “Down In The Mines”: Bdubs and later Grian relay the tale of the first Boogeyman kill, and the viewer is introduced to what the Boogeyman is.

4. “A(ha)lliances”: The Southlands ally, making a-ha jokes, and Pearl and Scott solidify their alliance via Pearl gifting Scott a life.

5. “You Bet Your Life”: At the end of the session, Tango goes around the server, introducing his game.

6. “Our Will Be Done (Precursor)”: Instrumental track. Martyn hears a mysterious voice speaking to him for the first time (he has no idea it’s the Watchers), telling him to give Ren some Nether Wart. He does so.

7. “The Three Skulls”: Grian introduces a plan of raising the Wither, and we’re fully introduced to his character.

8. “Debts”: Instrumental track. Martyn extinguishes Ren’s burning tower and Ren tells him of his alliance and pledge to Lizzie, reminding him of his time in 3rd Life. FINISHED.

9. “In Spring We Met”: Martyn’s meeting with Ren prompts him to think about how he treated and will treat alliances moving forward. The Watchers prompt him to get closer to Ren and thus further from the Southlands (unbeknownst to him, they want Grian dead). COMPOSITION FINISHED, RECORDING NOT. Note that some lyrics have been altered from the linked extract.

10. “Green, Crimson, Gold”: Joel is now Red after an unlucky session, and news of a Red name – and what that means – spreads throughout the server.

11. “Their Dubious Game”: Prompted by the server’s isolation of Red Joel, Scott wonders about how trustworthy the rules of the game actually are. After all, the forced isolation of Red names this time contradicts his experiences in 3rd Life with Jimmy, while Martyn, breaching the border with the Southlands.

12. “A(ha)alliances (Reprise)”: Time passes, and Martyn grows closer to the Southlands. However, he’s still meeting up with Ren who offers to introduce him to Lizzie and the rest of the Fairy Fort, potentially considering a betrayal. The Voice prompts him to accept this, as they can be useful in its plan.

13. “Their Delicate Game/His Dubious Game”: Grian talks about going beyond the border, showing the Southlanders how to do it. Later, Scott + Martyn discuss Grian's plan to get wither skulls.

14. “Northern Lament”: Below Magical Mountain, Joel fumes at being distrusted by everyone and isolated purely due to his Red name, and vows to get more “friends” soon. Above, Scar muses about being isolated and distrusted for the opposite reason, because of how many lives he has.

15. “Green, Crimson, Gold (Reprise)”: Cleo is betrayed by BigB, and Grian, Bdubs and Cleo fall to Joel or circumstance.

16. “Friends”: The Southlanders are informed of Grian's Redness. Grian desperately tries to kill Mumbo so they can still be with each other, while Martyn joins his first meeting with the Fairy Fort alliance (henceforth the Shadow Alliance).

-Act Two-

17. “Walls”: Scott muses about the many walls built to keep out violence. Grian has been exiled from the Southlands, the stone wall he built separating them. In the Snow Fort, Etho and BDubs build a wall to keep them separate until he can gain a life again. Cleo, wanting vengeance on BigB, meets Scott on the other side of his wall, Scott giving her some sugarcane. Post-song, Grian, Joel and Cleo express their desire to gain lives back from Scar. 

18. “Their Will”: Martyn relays the aims of the Voice, which he now interprets as the Moon, to the rest of the Shadow Alliance, who agree with it.

19. “Die For Me”: In the meeting, Martyn asks if there’s anything recent he should know about the Fairy Fort. They tell him the Fairy Fort has burned down at the hands of Cleo, relaying the tale as a flashback. 

20. “Promises”/“Coal Mine”: Martyn chases Jimmy, who’s stolen his life in the Southlands life-passing ritual, spurred on by the Voice. He lies to Jimmy, telling him they can run away from the Southlands together if he gives him back his life. Jimmy expresses his worry about potentially being the first out again in the process, as this has happened before and he is very vulnerable as a Yellow, and agrees. Martyn runs back with his life straight after.

21. “The Wizard On The Mountain/The Trial of Timmy”: a Yellow Grian rejoins the Southlands, telling them (especially Martyn, as he did not know when this happened due to his absences) how he got a life back from Scar, who’s now Yellow himself. He finds out about what happened with Jimmy, and the Southlands hold a trial about whether he should be exiled or stay in. They will anonymously vote their verdict in a book, Grian campaigning for Jimmy to leave, while the others, minus Martyn, campaign for him to stay. When it is time for them to vote, Martyn votes him in. The Voice is angry at Martyn, asking him why he’s still attached to the Southlands when he wishes to join the Shadow, appearing to him and telling him a demonstration is in order... “Lights extinguish/Begin the Slaughter/Our Will Be Done!”

22. “Red, Crimson, Gold (Reprise 2)”: Grian manages to get his three skulls, but as he’s distracted by this aim, the other members of the South fall to boogeymen, of which there are six of this session, due to the Voice’s promise. Impulse falls to Yellow at Scott’s hands, and Mumbo and Jimmy both become Red, along with many other players on the server, including Lizzie and once more, Joel.

23. “A(ha)lliances (Reprise 2)”: Grian, Impulse, Martyn find south blown up by Mumbo, and burn the walls in commemoration. Grian and Martyn don't trust each other, while Impulse doesn't want his loyalty to be doubted (as the only one fully on board with the alliance). Meanwhile, the alliance between Scott, Pearl, Cleo strengthens, and Etho and Bdubs discover their wither skull missing. Impulse turns Red.

24. “When Will You Learn?”: Heading back to the Southlands, Grian and Martyn meet Jimmy and Mumbo, who attack them. Grian kills them both, to Martyn’s shock, and, shocked himself, tries to defend his actions. All of a sudden, the Voice appears again and a Boogeyman curse strikes Martyn. Prompted by the Voice (seeming to have a specific hatred of Grian) and by vengeance for Mumbo and Jimmy, Martyn immediately moves to kill Grian. He succeeds, but the kill is attributed to Joel, who has sniped him. Exhausted, Martyn managed to kill Tango. When called to another Shadow meeting, he returns to his empty Southlands tower instead.

25. “Unnamed Wither Song (Proper)”: The Wither is raised by Grian and Impulse in Team BEST’s base. Etho wants to run, but Bdubs attacks it, giving him the courage to attack too – however, Bdubs loses a life to it, turning Red once more. The remaining Greens and Yellows flock to fight it as the Reds join in, trying to kill the other players. The Wither is defeated by Etho; Impulse falls to Scott’s hand, dying permanently; Bdubs takes Lizzie’s final life as he was promised a life in exchange for killing a Red; he is shot by Grian as he runs to Etho to inform him of this.

26. Unnamed Song: In the aftermath, Etho mourns BDubs’ death, while Ren mourns his failure to protect his Shadow Queen, even if she was Red.

27. “Our Will Be Done”: Waking up all alone, Martyn hallucinates his dead friends, thinking about how even when he tried not, to he STILL got attached, how he's only a follower of the Voice (just like he was just a follower of Ren back in 3rd Life). He questions the Voice/Watchers, finally snapping at the,. Why are they speaking to him? Why are they hell-bent on killing Grian? What did he mean? Why does he have to follow it when he wants to do the opposite of what they tell him? Who are they – why should he do anything they say? However, they pacify him, promising that if he does what they say, they will bring Impulse, Mumbo and Jimmy back. Martyn concedes.

28. “Scott’s Elegy”: Scott, cursed as the Boogeyman once more makes a decision to surrender himself to the curse instead, as he doesn’t want to kill any more allies with so few lives left in the game.

29. “Boogie Boogie On The Dance Floor”: The Chorus informs us that it is the last day. Pearl is chosen as the Boogeyman, rigging a TNT trap on a disco floor, turning Ren’s red. The others quickly fall to the Reds, including Cleo.

30. “Martyn’s Stand”: Now left as the last Yellow, Martyn decides he is tired of hiding, deciding to finally take his fate into his own hands and make a last stand against everyone, heading to a mountain and pouring lava down the sides as a beacon for the Reds. However, though he puts up a good fight, he doesn’t manage to take any of them down before dying himself, marking the server entirely Red. 

31. “Battle Royale”: With the Reds having turned on each other, the four survivors – Pearl, Scott, Ren and Martyn – agree to a Battle Royale to decide the victor. Pearl dies early on, prompting Scott to grieve and resolve to win this fight, no matter what it takes. Martyn eventually falls to his own End Crystal. Only Scott and Ren are left, and they fight to the voices of dead players telling them to play the game. After a long fight, Scott manages to kill Ren, partially due to a zombie which he interprets as the world maybe doing something after all for his defiance. He is crowned the winner. However, the Voice does not like this, the Chorus supporting this, and Scott is stricken dead with heavenly lightning.

32. “Plainly Spoken [Epilogue]”: All is silence, and yet Martyn opens his eyes once more, to the Voice and the Chorus, now joined as they are the same entity, informing him how disappointed they are in him, and that he is heading closer and closer to the light. As he asks questions, he is cut off, and they say he will forget all that has happened with them as he and everyone else moves into the next game. Up above, the land is now in the state it was at the start of “Middle of Nowhere”, and they are revealed to be those that run the death loop.

[gme-news]

Nikola Jokic Reacts to their Lost Against Miami Heat Game 2 NBA Finals

via IFTTT

[clavissionary-position]

The Kitty of Kogyoku

Azel: Matthias, will you come here for a moment? I have a fascinating theory.

Matthias: (stops poorly-carving an owl from World-Famous Achroite Wood) What is it?

Azel: You'll see. Would you please take Kagari's katana?

Matthias: But he's sleeping with it. He might have nightmares without it.

Azel: Not to worry. I'll simply give him God's Divine Protection™. He'll sleep like a baby warlord.

Matthias: Hmm. I can agree to these conditions. Very well.

Matthias: (takes Kagari's katana)

Matthias: (or tries to)

Matthias: He's got a really powerful grip. And I say that as a part-time logger.

Azel: Oh, my. That makes you the lumberjack lawyer, doesn't it.

Matthias: 😇 I am a man of many talents.

Azel: Like carving uglyー

Matthias: I'm sorry, what was that?

Azel: I said the 😇 emoji is copyrighted to me, and I charge a small fee for every use.

Azel: (slaps Matthias with an invoice)

Matthias: My apologies. I'll wire the fees to your temple immediately.

Azel: Thank you very much, it's always a pleasure doing business with you. But first, our katana problem...

Azel: (nods to Kagari) Tickle his chin like a cat.

Matthias: Like this?

Matthias: (tickles Kagari's chin) Tickle tickle tickle.

Azel: The sound effects are unnecessary, but, oh, look there!

Kagari: (drops his katana)

Matthias: I hope his enemies don't know about that trick.

Azel: We might be his enemies one day. Anyway, now that we're past that life-threatening stageー

Azel: (leans in to whisper) Kagari. What do you do when you're angry?

Kagari: (in his sleep) Resolve things peacefully by talking it out.

Matthias: (gasps)

Matthias: (looks at the katana)

Matthias: (looks at Kagari)

Azel: (uses Matthias' hand to pick the katana up and tuck it back into Kagari's embrace)

Azel: Could you repeat that, Kagari?

Kagari: (sleep-reaches into his pillow) Do you want to see the doodle I made of the guy I killed this morning?

Azel: No.

Matthias: Yes.

☆

Kagari: (recapping the episode) And then I got bored went to sleep for real.

Azel: A fine tale. But just because you don't have anything new to share for storytime doesn't mean you should recap events we were all present for.

Azel: Literally 20 minutes ago.

Azel: ...Sleeping so little will make you a liability to your fellow alliance-members, Kagari. Not to mention the toll it will have on your body. Don't make God watch you waste away.

Kagari: No one's making you watch anything. That's just how I operate. I've got to be ready for the kill at any moment.

Kagari: And, for the record, I do have new stories, but someone keeps insisting I censor all the blood and gore.

Matthias: (the owl carving is now in a special class of abomination) It's a shame because all the blood and gore truly feels like its own character with how you tell your stories.

Kagari: Thank you, Matthias. As always you have... (stares at the carving) ...impeccable...

Azel: Aaand here's your invoice for the chin tickles.

Kagari: You're not the one who tickled me.

Azel: Imagine if I didn't charge royalties for my ideas.

Kagari: Are you imagining it, Matthias?

Matthias: (tears in his eyes) I am.

Kagari + Matthias: The Perfect World.

Azel: Your carving sucks and I hope you fall on your katana.

a/n:

To my knowledge, Matthias is neither a logger nor wood-carver, he simply hails from a country with those industries. But in my head he absolutely is, and in such cases his shirt is always optional.

"Tickle his chin like a cat"—I learned a lot about cats from reading that Yves Like a Kitty bonus story 🤣

Oh also also I was inspired by incorrect ikevamp quotes by @/yanderepuck and @/evil-quartett

[mostlysignssomeportents]

AI “art�� and uncanniness

TOMORROW (May 14), I'm on a livecast about AI AND ENSHITTIFICATION with TIM O'REILLY; on TOMORROW (May 15), I'm in NORTH HOLLYWOOD for a screening of STEPHANIE KELTON'S FINDING THE MONEY; FRIDAY (May 17), I'm at the INTERNET ARCHIVE in SAN FRANCISCO to keynote the 10th anniversary of the AUTHORS ALLIANCE.

When it comes to AI art (or "art"), it's hard to find a nuanced position that respects creative workers' labor rights, free expression, copyright law's vital exceptions and limitations, and aesthetics.

I am, on balance, opposed to AI art, but there are some important caveats to that position. For starters, I think it's unequivocally wrong – as a matter of law – to say that scraping works and training a model with them infringes copyright. This isn't a moral position (I'll get to that in a second), but rather a technical one.

Break down the steps of training a model and it quickly becomes apparent why it's technically wrong to call this a copyright infringement. First, the act of making transient copies of works – even billions of works – is unequivocally fair use. Unless you think search engines and the Internet Archive shouldn't exist, then you should support scraping at scale:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/09/17/how-to-think-about-scraping/

And unless you think that Facebook should be allowed to use the law to block projects like Ad Observer, which gathers samples of paid political disinformation, then you should support scraping at scale, even when the site being scraped objects (at least sometimes):

https://pluralistic.net/2021/08/06/get-you-coming-and-going/#potemkin-research-program

After making transient copies of lots of works, the next step in AI training is to subject them to mathematical analysis. Again, this isn't a copyright violation.

Making quantitative observations about works is a longstanding, respected and important tool for criticism, analysis, archiving and new acts of creation. Measuring the steady contraction of the vocabulary in successive Agatha Christie novels turns out to offer a fascinating window into her dementia:

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2009/apr/03/agatha-christie-alzheimers-research

Programmatic analysis of scraped online speech is also critical to the burgeoning formal analyses of the language spoken by minorities, producing a vibrant account of the rigorous grammar of dialects that have long been dismissed as "slang":

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/373950278_Lexicogrammatical_Analysis_on_African-American_Vernacular_English_Spoken_by_African-Amecian_You-Tubers

Since 1988, UCL Survey of English Language has maintained its "International Corpus of English," and scholars have plumbed its depth to draw important conclusions about the wide variety of Englishes spoken around the world, especially in postcolonial English-speaking countries:

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/english-usage/projects/ice.htm

The final step in training a model is publishing the conclusions of the quantitative analysis of the temporarily copied documents as software code. Code itself is a form of expressive speech – and that expressivity is key to the fight for privacy, because the fact that code is speech limits how governments can censor software:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/04/remembering-case-established-code-speech/

Are models infringing? Well, they certainly can be. In some cases, it's clear that models "memorized" some of the data in their training set, making the fair use, transient copy into an infringing, permanent one. That's generally considered to be the result of a programming error, and it could certainly be prevented (say, by comparing the model to the training data and removing any memorizations that appear).

Not every seeming act of memorization is a memorization, though. While specific models vary widely, the amount of data from each training item retained by the model is very small. For example, Midjourney retains about one byte of information from each image in its training data. If we're talking about a typical low-resolution web image of say, 300kb, that would be one three-hundred-thousandth (0.0000033%) of the original image.

Typically in copyright discussions, when one work contains 0.0000033% of another work, we don't even raise the question of fair use. Rather, we dismiss the use as de minimis (short for de minimis non curat lex or "The law does not concern itself with trifles"):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_minimis

Busting someone who takes 0.0000033% of your work for copyright infringement is like swearing out a trespassing complaint against someone because the edge of their shoe touched one blade of grass on your lawn.

But some works or elements of work appear many times online. For example, the Getty Images watermark appears on millions of similar images of people standing on red carpets and runways, so a model that takes even in infinitesimal sample of each one of those works might still end up being able to produce a whole, recognizable Getty Images watermark.

The same is true for wire-service articles or other widely syndicated texts: there might be dozens or even hundreds of copies of these works in training data, resulting in the memorization of long passages from them.

This might be infringing (we're getting into some gnarly, unprecedented territory here), but again, even if it is, it wouldn't be a big hardship for model makers to post-process their models by comparing them to the training set, deleting any inadvertent memorizations. Even if the resulting model had zero memorizations, this would do nothing to alleviate the (legitimate) concerns of creative workers about the creation and use of these models.

So here's the first nuance in the AI art debate: as a technical matter, training a model isn't a copyright infringement. Creative workers who hope that they can use copyright law to prevent AI from changing the creative labor market are likely to be very disappointed in court:

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/sarah-silverman-lawsuit-ai-meta-1235669403/

But copyright law isn't a fixed, eternal entity. We write new copyright laws all the time. If current copyright law doesn't prevent the creation of models, what about a future copyright law?

Well, sure, that's a possibility. The first thing to consider is the possible collateral damage of such a law. The legal space for scraping enables a wide range of scholarly, archival, organizational and critical purposes. We'd have to be very careful not to inadvertently ban, say, the scraping of a politician's campaign website, lest we enable liars to run for office and renege on their promises, while they insist that they never made those promises in the first place. We wouldn't want to abolish search engines, or stop creators from scraping their own work off sites that are going away or changing their terms of service.

Now, onto quantitative analysis: counting words and measuring pixels are not activities that you should need permission to perform, with or without a computer, even if the person whose words or pixels you're counting doesn't want you to. You should be able to look as hard as you want at the pixels in Kate Middleton's family photos, or track the rise and fall of the Oxford comma, and you shouldn't need anyone's permission to do so.

Finally, there's publishing the model. There are plenty of published mathematical analyses of large corpuses that are useful and unobjectionable. I love me a good Google n-gram:

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=fantods%2C+heebie-jeebies&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3

And large language models fill all kinds of important niches, like the Human Rights Data Analysis Group's LLM-based work helping the Innocence Project New Orleans' extract data from wrongful conviction case files:

https://hrdag.org/tech-notes/large-language-models-IPNO.html

So that's nuance number two: if we decide to make a new copyright law, we'll need to be very sure that we don't accidentally crush these beneficial activities that don't undermine artistic labor markets.

This brings me to the most important point: passing a new copyright law that requires permission to train an AI won't help creative workers get paid or protect our jobs.

Getty Images pays photographers the least it can get away with. Publishers contracts have transformed by inches into miles-long, ghastly rights grabs that take everything from writers, but still shifts legal risks onto them:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/06/19/reasonable-agreement/

Publishers like the New York Times bitterly oppose their writers' unions:

https://actionnetwork.org/letters/new-york-times-stop-union-busting

These large corporations already control the copyrights to gigantic amounts of training data, and they have means, motive and opportunity to license these works for training a model in order to pay us less, and they are engaged in this activity right now:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/22/technology/apple-ai-news-publishers.html

Big games studios are already acting as though there was a copyright in training data, and requiring their voice actors to begin every recording session with words to the effect of, "I hereby grant permission to train an AI with my voice" and if you don't like it, you can hit the bricks:

https://www.vice.com/en/article/5d37za/voice-actors-sign-away-rights-to-artificial-intelligence

If you're a creative worker hoping to pay your bills, it doesn't matter whether your wages are eroded by a model produced without paying your employer for the right to do so, or whether your employer got to double dip by selling your work to an AI company to train a model, and then used that model to fire you or erode your wages:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/02/09/ai-monkeys-paw/#bullied-schoolkids

Individual creative workers rarely have any bargaining leverage over the corporations that license our copyrights. That's why copyright's 40-year expansion (in duration, scope, statutory damages) has resulted in larger, more profitable entertainment companies, and lower payments – in real terms and as a share of the income generated by their work – for creative workers.

As Rebecca Giblin and I write in our book Chokepoint Capitalism, giving creative workers more rights to bargain with against giant corporations that control access to our audiences is like giving your bullied schoolkid extra lunch money – it's just a roundabout way of transferring that money to the bullies:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/08/21/what-is-chokepoint-capitalism/

There's an historical precedent for this struggle – the fight over music sampling. 40 years ago, it wasn't clear whether sampling required a copyright license, and early hip-hop artists took samples without permission, the way a horn player might drop a couple bars of a well-known song into a solo.

Many artists were rightfully furious over this. The "heritage acts" (the music industry's euphemism for "Black people") who were most sampled had been given very bad deals and had seen very little of the fortunes generated by their creative labor. Many of them were desperately poor, despite having made millions for their labels. When other musicians started making money off that work, they got mad.

In the decades that followed, the system for sampling changed, partly through court cases and partly through the commercial terms set by the Big Three labels: Sony, Warner and Universal, who control 70% of all music recordings. Today, you generally can't sample without signing up to one of the Big Three (they are reluctant to deal with indies), and that means taking their standard deal, which is very bad, and also signs away your right to control your samples.

So a musician who wants to sample has to sign the bad terms offered by a Big Three label, and then hand $500 out of their advance to one of those Big Three labels for the sample license. That $500 typically doesn't go to another artist – it goes to the label, who share it around their executives and investors. This is a system that makes every artist poorer.

But it gets worse. Putting a price on samples changes the kind of music that can be economically viable. If you wanted to clear all the samples on an album like Public Enemy's "It Takes a Nation of Millions To Hold Us Back," or the Beastie Boys' "Paul's Boutique," you'd have to sell every CD for $150, just to break even:

https://memex.craphound.com/2011/07/08/creative-license-how-the-hell-did-sampling-get-so-screwed-up-and-what-the-hell-do-we-do-about-it/

Sampling licenses don't just make every artist financially worse off, they also prevent the creation of music of the sort that millions of people enjoy. But it gets even worse. Some older, sample-heavy music can't be cleared. Most of De La Soul's catalog wasn't available for 15 years, and even though some of their seminal music came back in March 2022, the band's frontman Trugoy the Dove didn't live to see it – he died in February 2022:

https://www.vulture.com/2023/02/de-la-soul-trugoy-the-dove-dead-at-54.html

This is the third nuance: even if we can craft a model-banning copyright system that doesn't catch a lot of dolphins in its tuna net, it could still make artists poorer off.

Back when sampling started, it wasn't clear whether it would ever be considered artistically important. Early sampling was crude and experimental. Musicians who trained for years to master an instrument were dismissive of the idea that clicking a mouse was "making music." Today, most of us don't question the idea that sampling can produce meaningful art – even musicians who believe in licensing samples.

Having lived through that era, I'm prepared to believe that maybe I'll look back on AI "art" and say, "damn, I can't believe I never thought that could be real art."

But I wouldn't give odds on it.

I don't like AI art. I find it anodyne, boring. As Henry Farrell writes, it's uncanny, and not in a good way:

https://www.programmablemutter.com/p/large-language-models-are-uncanny

Farrell likens the work produced by AIs to the movement of a Ouija board's planchette, something that "seems to have a life of its own, even though its motion is a collective side-effect of the motions of the people whose fingers lightly rest on top of it." This is "spooky-action-at-a-close-up," transforming "collective inputs … into apparently quite specific outputs that are not the intended creation of any conscious mind."

Look, art is irrational in the sense that it speaks to us at some non-rational, or sub-rational level. Caring about the tribulations of imaginary people or being fascinated by pictures of things that don't exist (or that aren't even recognizable) doesn't make any sense. There's a way in which all art is like an optical illusion for our cognition, an imaginary thing that captures us the way a real thing might.

But art is amazing. Making art and experiencing art makes us feel big, numinous, irreducible emotions. Making art keeps me sane. Experiencing art is a precondition for all the joy in my life. Having spent most of my life as a working artist, I've come to the conclusion that the reason for this is that art transmits an approximation of some big, numinous irreducible emotion from an artist's mind to our own. That's it: that's why art is amazing.

AI doesn't have a mind. It doesn't have an intention. The aesthetic choices made by AI aren't choices, they're averages. As Farrell writes, "LLM art sometimes seems to communicate a message, as art does, but it is unclear where that message comes from, or what it means. If it has any meaning at all, it is a meaning that does not stem from organizing intention" (emphasis mine).

Farrell cites Mark Fisher's The Weird and the Eerie, which defines "weird" in easy to understand terms ("that which does not belong") but really grapples with "eerie."

For Fisher, eeriness is "when there is something present where there should be nothing, or is there is nothing present when there should be something." AI art produces the seeming of intention without intending anything. It appears to be an agent, but it has no agency. It's eerie.

Fisher talks about capitalism as eerie. Capital is "conjured out of nothing" but "exerts more influence than any allegedly substantial entity." The "invisible hand" shapes our lives more than any person. The invisible hand is fucking eerie. Capitalism is a system in which insubstantial non-things – corporations – appear to act with intention, often at odds with the intentions of the human beings carrying out those actions.

So will AI art ever be art? I don't know. There's a long tradition of using random or irrational or impersonal inputs as the starting point for human acts of artistic creativity. Think of divination:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/07/31/divination/

Or Brian Eno's Oblique Strategies:

http://stoney.sb.org/eno/oblique.html

I love making my little collages for this blog, though I wouldn't call them important art. Nevertheless, piecing together bits of other peoples' work can make fantastic, important work of historical note:

https://www.johnheartfield.com/John-Heartfield-Exhibition/john-heartfield-art/famous-anti-fascist-art/heartfield-posters-aiz

Even though painstakingly cutting out tiny elements from others' images can be a meditative and educational experience, I don't think that using tiny scissors or the lasso tool is what defines the "art" in collage. If you can automate some of this process, it could still be art.

Here's what I do know. Creating an individual bargainable copyright over training will not improve the material conditions of artists' lives – all it will do is change the relative shares of the value we create, shifting some of that value from tech companies that hate us and want us to starve to entertainment companies that hate us and want us to starve.

As an artist, I'm foursquare against anything that stands in the way of making art. As an artistic worker, I'm entirely committed to things that help workers get a fair share of the money their work creates, feed their families and pay their rent.

I think today's AI art is bad, and I think tomorrow's AI art will probably be bad, but even if you disagree (with either proposition), I hope you'll agree that we should be focused on making sure art is legal to make and that artists get paid for it.

Just because copyright won't fix the creative labor market, it doesn't follow that nothing will. If we're worried about labor issues, we can look to labor law to improve our conditions. That's what the Hollywood writers did, in their groundbreaking 2023 strike:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/10/01/how-the-writers-guild-sunk-ais-ship/

Now, the writers had an advantage: they are able to engage in "sectoral bargaining," where a union bargains with all the major employers at once. That's illegal in nearly every other kind of labor market. But if we're willing to entertain the possibility of getting a new copyright law passed (that won't make artists better off), why not the possibility of passing a new labor law (that will)? Sure, our bosses won't lobby alongside of us for more labor protection, the way they would for more copyright (think for a moment about what that says about who benefits from copyright versus labor law expansion).

But all workers benefit from expanded labor protection. Rather than going to Congress alongside our bosses from the studios and labels and publishers to demand more copyright, we could go to Congress alongside every kind of worker, from fast-food cashiers to publishing assistants to truck drivers to demand the right to sectoral bargaining. That's a hell of a coalition.

And if we do want to tinker with copyright to change the way training works, let's look at collective licensing, which can't be bargained away, rather than individual rights that can be confiscated at the entrance to our publisher, label or studio's offices. These collective licenses have been a huge success in protecting creative workers:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/02/26/united-we-stand/

Then there's copyright's wildest wild card: The US Copyright Office has repeatedly stated that works made by AIs aren't eligible for copyright, which is the exclusive purview of works of human authorship. This has been affirmed by courts:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/08/20/everything-made-by-an-ai-is-in-the-public-domain/

Neither AI companies nor entertainment companies will pay creative workers if they don't have to. But for any company contemplating selling an AI-generated work, the fact that it is born in the public domain presents a substantial hurdle, because anyone else is free to take that work and sell it or give it away.

Whether or not AI "art" will ever be good art isn't what our bosses are thinking about when they pay for AI licenses: rather, they are calculating that they have so much market power that they can sell whatever slop the AI makes, and pay less for the AI license than they would make for a human artist's work. As is the case in every industry, AI can't do an artist's job, but an AI salesman can convince an artist's boss to fire the creative worker and replace them with AI:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/01/29/pay-no-attention/#to-the-little-man-behind-the-curtain

They don't care if it's slop – they just care about their bottom line. A studio executive who cancels a widely anticipated film prior to its release to get a tax-credit isn't thinking about artistic integrity. They care about one thing: money. The fact that AI works can be freely copied, sold or given away may not mean much to a creative worker who actually makes their own art, but I assure you, it's the only thing that matters to our bosses.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/05/13/spooky-action-at-a-close-up/#invisible-hand