Training AI models on copyrighted works is "squarely what transformative use is," EFF’s Tori Noble told Reason - these are "general purpose tools" and "exactly the kind of creation that copyright is designed to foster.” https://reason.com/2026/09/04/doj-says-barring-ai-training-on-copyrighted-material-could-severely-hamper-tech-progress/
If you haven’t already done so, now is the time to cancel any donations to these libertarian tech bros.
At the same time, though, as long as the economic system remains what it is, copyright is often the only thing that allows artists to make a living off their work, even when its implementation has many problems.
You can say that we should focus on changing the economic system then, and sure, but that’s not going to happen tomorrow and in the meantime I’d rather not live in a world where art is economically unviable.
That’s hardly universal. Most working artists don’t get a lot of income from a back library of material, unless you’re one of the last few independent stock photographers. They make income by working.
Artists who are employed or do contract work are often hired because someone is trying to make money off something that makes use of their work, and their ability to make money off that often depends on copyright. So it’s still ultimately a dependency on copyright, just with one layer of separation in between.
That leaves artists who make an income from doing some kind of performance, like concerts or plays. I guess that doesn’t really require copyright, but it’s a pretty limited subset of artists for whom this is possible.
Software developers, graphics artists, window painters, live musicians, session musicians, photographers and cinematographers, copy writers, florists, chocolatiers, dancers, interior decorators, animators, chefs, composers, and virtually every other kind of artist would still have a job in a world without copyright protection. If your art isn’t being mass produced, it’s not really relevant.
Sure, someone is going to need to write the firmware for the machinery in factories regardless of copyright protections, but who’s going hire animators if they can’t sell the final product or monetise it in any way without immediately competing against their own work? People who make commercials? Real bright future you’re depicting there.
But more importantly, aren’t you forgetting something fundamental here?
I’d rather not live in a world where art is economically unviable.
This is not just about the artists, it’s also about me. And by me, I mean everyone, including artists, because they don’t just create art. Most of the art I enjoy is mass-produced: books are, films are, video games are. If those become economically unviable in the current economic system, then my art appreciation would basically become occasionally going to a concert or museum, and going through humanity’s backlog of works. Certainly, that backlog is large enough for many lifetimes, but while Cold War analogies are still relevant to some extent, it sure would be nice to enjoy something that speaks of today every now and then.
That’s a ridiculous statement. I make royalties from sales of an audio sample library I once worked on. If people just pirated that sample library and got it for free and didn’t buy it, I wouldn’t receive any royalties.
No, it’s not called theft. It’s called infringement. You don’t own the song, the poem, the story, the character, the image in the photo or the audio in the sample. One cannot own a song. What one has is an exclusive right to exploit a song.
I feel like your, “That’s called theft,” is an attempt to moralize and shame. But that’s only called infringement among those who agree it is, because they agree it is. There is no cosmic law that makes it so and there is really no financial reality that requires it to be so.
It’s not infringement if you use an algorithm that someone else figured out, and somehow software developers all manage. It’s not infringement if I build my house exactly the same as the one you have an architect design, but architects do okay. It’s not infringement when I perform a Jonathan Coulton song for money, and despite putting all his creative output in the Creative Commons, he still has a successful career.
The way things are are ARBITRARY and don’t reflect morality or need. Over time copyright law has become entirely detached from the needs of artists and instead reflects the needs of the capitalists who seek to exploit artists’ output.
That’s a very long-winded of saying you support the right for me to lose the money I deserve as the creator of a product. We have nothing left to talk about. Bye.
At the same time, though, as long as the economic system remains what it is, copyright is often the only thing that allows artists to make a living off their work, even when its implementation has many problems.
You can say that we should focus on changing the economic system then, and sure, but that’s not going to happen tomorrow and in the meantime I’d rather not live in a world where art is economically unviable.
That’s hardly universal. Most working artists don’t get a lot of income from a back library of material, unless you’re one of the last few independent stock photographers. They make income by working.
Artists who are employed or do contract work are often hired because someone is trying to make money off something that makes use of their work, and their ability to make money off that often depends on copyright. So it’s still ultimately a dependency on copyright, just with one layer of separation in between.
That leaves artists who make an income from doing some kind of performance, like concerts or plays. I guess that doesn’t really require copyright, but it’s a pretty limited subset of artists for whom this is possible.
Software developers, graphics artists, window painters, live musicians, session musicians, photographers and cinematographers, copy writers, florists, chocolatiers, dancers, interior decorators, animators, chefs, composers, and virtually every other kind of artist would still have a job in a world without copyright protection. If your art isn’t being mass produced, it’s not really relevant.
Sure, someone is going to need to write the firmware for the machinery in factories regardless of copyright protections, but who’s going hire animators if they can’t sell the final product or monetise it in any way without immediately competing against their own work? People who make commercials? Real bright future you’re depicting there.
But more importantly, aren’t you forgetting something fundamental here?
This is not just about the artists, it’s also about me. And by me, I mean everyone, including artists, because they don’t just create art. Most of the art I enjoy is mass-produced: books are, films are, video games are. If those become economically unviable in the current economic system, then my art appreciation would basically become occasionally going to a concert or museum, and going through humanity’s backlog of works. Certainly, that backlog is large enough for many lifetimes, but while Cold War analogies are still relevant to some extent, it sure would be nice to enjoy something that speaks of today every now and then.
That’s a ridiculous statement. I make royalties from sales of an audio sample library I once worked on. If people just pirated that sample library and got it for free and didn’t buy it, I wouldn’t receive any royalties.
That’s called theft.
No, it’s not called theft. It’s called infringement. You don’t own the song, the poem, the story, the character, the image in the photo or the audio in the sample. One cannot own a song. What one has is an exclusive right to exploit a song.
I feel like your, “That’s called theft,” is an attempt to moralize and shame. But that’s only called infringement among those who agree it is, because they agree it is. There is no cosmic law that makes it so and there is really no financial reality that requires it to be so.
It’s not infringement if you use an algorithm that someone else figured out, and somehow software developers all manage. It’s not infringement if I build my house exactly the same as the one you have an architect design, but architects do okay. It’s not infringement when I perform a Jonathan Coulton song for money, and despite putting all his creative output in the Creative Commons, he still has a successful career.
The way things are are ARBITRARY and don’t reflect morality or need. Over time copyright law has become entirely detached from the needs of artists and instead reflects the needs of the capitalists who seek to exploit artists’ output.
That’s a very long-winded of saying you support the right for me to lose the money I deserve as the creator of a product. We have nothing left to talk about. Bye.
What? No it isn’t. Where did I say anything remotely like that?
Your anecdote doesn’t trump my anecdote; now we have two anecdotes.