“Napster destroyed the business model of music” overstates the case. While I agree AI shouldn’t steal IP, obviously, there’s a distinction between piracy and AI training that can get lost.
The relationship between piracy and industry revenue is complex and contested. While some studies show impact, others suggest the effects are often overstated. Piracy frequently reflects service failure more than moral failing. When Netflix consolidated content (and ‘everything’ was on Netflix), piracy dropped. When content fragmented across dozens of streaming platforms, it surged again. That suggests piracy is a distribution problem, not just theft. (Also, music privacy is way way down since Spotify and Apple Music et al.)
AI training presents a different challenge. Unlike a fan downloading a movie they may or may not buy later, AI systems don’t consume media they digest it to generate new, (potentially competing) content at scale. That’s less like individual piracy and more like industrial-scale content laundering. (And very much not great… AI slop is everywhere…)
The music industry did change after Napster, but those shifts were driven by broader technological and market forces, not piracy alone. Even if no CD was ever pirated, we’d likely have Spotify now. It’s much more convenient. Further, we need a wider conversation about copyright reform. The current system allows corporations to basically indefinitely control modern myths and cultural icons, stifling (fan) culture and creative reinterpretation that have historically fueled storytelling and kept them relevant. (Just look at Star Wars and how corporate control limits fan creativity/joy/love despite that community keeping the franchise culturally relevant.)
The real issue isn’t whether a basement dweller generating Darth Vader images hurts Disney, it’s whether copyright law serves creativity or merely protects corporate profits. AI regulation should be part of broader copyright reform.
P.S. Calling these AIs “thinking machines” is generous…they’re prediction engines, not creative intelligences.
PPS. Diablo sounds good. I’ll check it out. Cheers!
When I was in college, I had the best job ever: I worked in the Arts & Entertainment section of my local newspaper. And the best part of it was that all the reporters wanted me to get some experience covering their beat (music, art, theater, local festivals and MOVIES). I was def a reviewer. I left the art critique to the expert. Totally love your work, Sonny!
"...Those of us who actually explore that potential - the culminating latent space of human creation - come to understand that we're not so special on any individual scale. This perspective reveals to open minds how much more there is to gain than to be lost by these new tools..." sayth a defensive preceding commenter. I, on the other hand, am tiring rapidly of the libertarian/nihilistic/"Creator" argle-bargle those championing, let alone working in, A.I. serve up in pat, holier-than-thou dismissal of objections or anxieties about - Hollywood's legal foray the latest example - A.I.'s boasted, growing trespass on every dimension of human endeavor. And, the glaringly certain ripple-effects of it all. BTW, that a significant quotient of these prophets are under the age of 30 doesn't inspire confidence. ...I vaguely recall last hearing this sort of 'visionary' hubris in some basement rec room, hung with tie-dyed sheets and scented with incense, Hendrix or Grateful Dead setting the rhythm. ...If you get my drift.
Hollywood's lawsuit is spot-on on principle and, I should think, as a matter of well established law... [Although - gawd knows what dimension of 'regulation' pertaining to A.I. by states [where civil matters are litigated] Trump's BBB enjoins. Spoiler alert - A.I. lobbied for this for a reason]. Copyright law is pretty clear, the boundaries intentionally so if circumstantially litigable. Yeah - this suit may be a glass-half-full ploy at establishing and capturing some consideration from A.I. for the aforesaid trespass. But, more power to them anyhow. Shaking up the predicate economic model animating A.I.'s get-filthy-rich-lickety-split authors is perhaps best way to slow down their pump 'n dump attitude about relegating human creativity (outside their own) and labor to the dust bin in favor of - $ billion ka-ching/M&A and IPO - some new and supreme, planetary scale intelligence. The blather suggests they regard themselves as Promethean. I'd politely admonish them to pause and consider what became of Prometheus - or Dr. Frankenstein. Also, the old adage - "Just because you can, doesn't mean you SHOULD." Of course, that's red cape before a bull for the TechBros... near heresy.
Create something, then let the market decide the economics. Some petty whack-a-mole strategy is a futile way to paper over the obvious truth that the entire concept of copyright law has no place in a seamless global community with these tools freely available to all. Human brains already train on this material - no one thinks to stop that. Othering the tool because it possesses a potential is a terrible precedent. Those of us who actually explore that potential - the culminating latent space of human creation - come to understand that we're not so special on any individual scale. This perspective reveals to open minds how much more there is to gain than to be lost by these new tools. Listen to David Lynch on this topic, not the person who paints nothing but the same stylized anthropomorphic dog pictures or whatever & thinks their work is precious.
Respectfully, your stated opinion is the opposite of an “obvious truth.” You seem to be confusing what is possible with what is just. It is possible to destroy the livelihoods of tens of thousands of artists by pretending that they don’t own what they create. But theft is inherently unjust.
Crowbars are “available to all.” Using one to break into someone else’s house and steal their property is still both illegal and immoral.
One difference between this and the music industry is that we are in a post-Napster world with Netflix, Disney+, and all the streamers. You can get films by subscribing. You can only get new films at the theater. We have already seen physical media take a hit and recover a bit. So keep on suing the AI companies. Also, sue the people put clips of your films on YouTube and TikTok. Keep that stuff for your official channels. Let the nerds cry about how it's unfair. Get all the YouTube revenue for the studios. Take back the world!
“Napster destroyed the business model of music” overstates the case. While I agree AI shouldn’t steal IP, obviously, there’s a distinction between piracy and AI training that can get lost.
The relationship between piracy and industry revenue is complex and contested. While some studies show impact, others suggest the effects are often overstated. Piracy frequently reflects service failure more than moral failing. When Netflix consolidated content (and ‘everything’ was on Netflix), piracy dropped. When content fragmented across dozens of streaming platforms, it surged again. That suggests piracy is a distribution problem, not just theft. (Also, music privacy is way way down since Spotify and Apple Music et al.)
AI training presents a different challenge. Unlike a fan downloading a movie they may or may not buy later, AI systems don’t consume media they digest it to generate new, (potentially competing) content at scale. That’s less like individual piracy and more like industrial-scale content laundering. (And very much not great… AI slop is everywhere…)
The music industry did change after Napster, but those shifts were driven by broader technological and market forces, not piracy alone. Even if no CD was ever pirated, we’d likely have Spotify now. It’s much more convenient. Further, we need a wider conversation about copyright reform. The current system allows corporations to basically indefinitely control modern myths and cultural icons, stifling (fan) culture and creative reinterpretation that have historically fueled storytelling and kept them relevant. (Just look at Star Wars and how corporate control limits fan creativity/joy/love despite that community keeping the franchise culturally relevant.)
The real issue isn’t whether a basement dweller generating Darth Vader images hurts Disney, it’s whether copyright law serves creativity or merely protects corporate profits. AI regulation should be part of broader copyright reform.
P.S. Calling these AIs “thinking machines” is generous…they’re prediction engines, not creative intelligences.
PPS. Diablo sounds good. I’ll check it out. Cheers!
When I was in college, I had the best job ever: I worked in the Arts & Entertainment section of my local newspaper. And the best part of it was that all the reporters wanted me to get some experience covering their beat (music, art, theater, local festivals and MOVIES). I was def a reviewer. I left the art critique to the expert. Totally love your work, Sonny!
"...Those of us who actually explore that potential - the culminating latent space of human creation - come to understand that we're not so special on any individual scale. This perspective reveals to open minds how much more there is to gain than to be lost by these new tools..." sayth a defensive preceding commenter. I, on the other hand, am tiring rapidly of the libertarian/nihilistic/"Creator" argle-bargle those championing, let alone working in, A.I. serve up in pat, holier-than-thou dismissal of objections or anxieties about - Hollywood's legal foray the latest example - A.I.'s boasted, growing trespass on every dimension of human endeavor. And, the glaringly certain ripple-effects of it all. BTW, that a significant quotient of these prophets are under the age of 30 doesn't inspire confidence. ...I vaguely recall last hearing this sort of 'visionary' hubris in some basement rec room, hung with tie-dyed sheets and scented with incense, Hendrix or Grateful Dead setting the rhythm. ...If you get my drift.
Hollywood's lawsuit is spot-on on principle and, I should think, as a matter of well established law... [Although - gawd knows what dimension of 'regulation' pertaining to A.I. by states [where civil matters are litigated] Trump's BBB enjoins. Spoiler alert - A.I. lobbied for this for a reason]. Copyright law is pretty clear, the boundaries intentionally so if circumstantially litigable. Yeah - this suit may be a glass-half-full ploy at establishing and capturing some consideration from A.I. for the aforesaid trespass. But, more power to them anyhow. Shaking up the predicate economic model animating A.I.'s get-filthy-rich-lickety-split authors is perhaps best way to slow down their pump 'n dump attitude about relegating human creativity (outside their own) and labor to the dust bin in favor of - $ billion ka-ching/M&A and IPO - some new and supreme, planetary scale intelligence. The blather suggests they regard themselves as Promethean. I'd politely admonish them to pause and consider what became of Prometheus - or Dr. Frankenstein. Also, the old adage - "Just because you can, doesn't mean you SHOULD." Of course, that's red cape before a bull for the TechBros... near heresy.
The lawsuit
Create something, then let the market decide the economics. Some petty whack-a-mole strategy is a futile way to paper over the obvious truth that the entire concept of copyright law has no place in a seamless global community with these tools freely available to all. Human brains already train on this material - no one thinks to stop that. Othering the tool because it possesses a potential is a terrible precedent. Those of us who actually explore that potential - the culminating latent space of human creation - come to understand that we're not so special on any individual scale. This perspective reveals to open minds how much more there is to gain than to be lost by these new tools. Listen to David Lynch on this topic, not the person who paints nothing but the same stylized anthropomorphic dog pictures or whatever & thinks their work is precious.
Respectfully, your stated opinion is the opposite of an “obvious truth.” You seem to be confusing what is possible with what is just. It is possible to destroy the livelihoods of tens of thousands of artists by pretending that they don’t own what they create. But theft is inherently unjust.
Crowbars are “available to all.” Using one to break into someone else’s house and steal their property is still both illegal and immoral.
Sue them! Sue them now and forever!
One difference between this and the music industry is that we are in a post-Napster world with Netflix, Disney+, and all the streamers. You can get films by subscribing. You can only get new films at the theater. We have already seen physical media take a hit and recover a bit. So keep on suing the AI companies. Also, sue the people put clips of your films on YouTube and TikTok. Keep that stuff for your official channels. Let the nerds cry about how it's unfair. Get all the YouTube revenue for the studios. Take back the world!
In shower: Please keep harping on AI.