133
If someone would use in a Yt video 0,001 ms of a Pokémon sound, Nintendo would sue the guy, kidnap his family, kill the hamster and shit on the bed.
this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2023
133 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
37719 readers
173 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I work in music/licensing and this puts them in a very sticky situation. The laws around this are pretty set in stone. There will be a fair whack of cash changing hands I imagine.
Don't worry, in a few years, they'll just use an AI trained on copyrighted music to write an "original" score, declaring the training inputs to be "fair use" and the output to be "transformative", and all those pesky concerns about licensing will go away.
As well as a fair whack of cash.
they'll just use an AI trained on copyrighted music to write an "original" score, declaring the training inputs to be "fair use" and the output to be "transformative"
Isn't this essentially what humans do, too? Music isn't created in a vacuum; it's inspired by prior work. I guess the difference is that the AI won't ask for royalties.
LLM AI isn't creative enough to do anything more than straightforward copying. At best, it can copy two or more things at once and combine them, or apply a basic aesthetic/edit something to be visually "in the style of" a particular artist, sort of, kind of, not really. It can't be do anything with the meaning or intent of a work, or "be inspired" to create anything markedly new.
Like. Regular old human plagiarists often claim to just be "inspired by" too, even if they just gave a story a new coat of paint and changed character names and reworded some sentences. That's the level LLM's are at.
LLM's can be straight up directed to copy particular artist's styles, too. Which it knows how to do (badly) because it scraped their works without permission or payment. People use midjourney like this all the time.
That'd be a great comparison if AI weren't able to absorb and retain many, many orders of magnitude more information than humans can
That makes it even more transformative.
I hope he sends Nintendo a DMCA takedown.
That would be very entertaining, but anyone who is fanatical enough to make pokemon fan music probably wouldn’t dream of causing their favorite company harm.
Or, more accurately, they aren't prepared for the legal battle that would ensue
Which they would definitely win.
Even if it's based on the existing song, parody and sampling precedent make it clearly free use. However the creator definitely owns copyright on the specific creation.
Even if they would, look what at happened to Bleem. They successfully argued in court that the PS1 emulator they were selling was legal, but Sony kept suing them until Bleem went bankrupt paying legal fees. That was an actual corporation, too. What hope does an individual artist have?
While you have a point, the emulator scene is untested and legally dubious.
There is nothing dubious about copyright infringement. Doing what Sony did would easily be considered abusing the legal system and no judge would stand for it.
But the moment a fan kinda whistles a pokemon a little its lawyer time
I am shocked! Shocked!
No, wait, the other one, not surprised at all.
The Pokémon company and Nintendo are such anti consumer garbage companies that hate and punish their users and their fans say thank you
Piracy for me but not for thee