The Copyright Industry Is About To Discover That There Are Hundreds Of Thousands Of Songs Generated By AI Already Available, Already Popular
from the here-come-the-squeals dept
You may have noticed the world getting excited about the capabilities of ChatGPT, a text-based AI chat bot. Similarly, some are getting quite worked up over generative AI systems that can turn text prompts into images, including those mimicking the style of particular artists. But less remarked upon is the use of AI in the world of music. Music Business Worldwide has written two detailed news stories on the topic. The first comes from China:
Tencent Music Entertainment (TME) says that it has created and released over 1,000 tracks containing vocals created by AI tech that mimics the human voice.
And get this: one of these tracks has already surpassed 100 million streams.
Some of these songs use synthetic voices based on human singers, both dead and alive:
TME also confirmed today (November 15) that – in addition to “paying tribute” to the vocals of dead artists via the Lingyin Engine – it has also created “an AI singer lineup with the voices of trending [i.e currently active] stars such as Yang Chaoyue, among others”.
The copyright industry will doubtless have something to say about that. It is also unlikely to be delighted by the second Music Business Worldwide story about AI-generated music, this time in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) market:
MENA-focused Spotify rival, Anghami, is now taking the concept to a whole other level – claiming that it will soon become the first platform to host over 200,000 songs generated by AI.
Anghami has partnered with a generative music platform called Mubert, which says it allows users to create “unique soundtracks” for various uses such as social media, presentations or films using one million samples from over 4,000 musicians.
…
According to Mohammed Ogaily, VP Product at Anghami, the service has already “generated over 170,000 songs, based on three sets of lyrics, three talents, and 2,000 tracks generated by AI”.
It’s striking that the undoubtedly interesting but theoretical possibilities of ChatGPT and generative AI art are dominating the headlines, while we hear relatively little about these AI-based music services that are already up and running, and hugely popular with listeners. It’s probably a result of the generally parochial nature of mainstream Western media, which often ignores the important developments happening elsewhere.
Follow me @glynmoody on Mastodon or Twitter.
Filed Under: chatgpt, china, copyright, generative ai, mena, mubert, music, openai, tencent
Companies: anghami, mubert, openai, spotify, tencent
Comments on “The Copyright Industry Is About To Discover That There Are Hundreds Of Thousands Of Songs Generated By AI Already Available, Already Popular”
Oh, this is gonna be fun!!! I’m sure that many of those music pieces sound similar to something that is copyrighted. After all, there a relatively few notes, and the number of combinations is reasonably finite. If a computer created the music that impinges on a copyright, who do you sue? Hmmm, maybe we can write a song about a song that violates a song copyright…
Re:
Well, we’re close, with Wierd Al’s Don’t download this song and Easy A & MC Keam’s Don’t steal our Rhymes.
If you want to write a tribute (or parody) to those, Bob’s your uncle!
Re:
Fun is one way of describing it.
“bloody terrifying” is another.
The short story of “Melancholy Elephants” was frightening enough without trying to speed up the process described of copyrighting every possible combination of tones by automation.
And with copyright at 70 years after the ‘death’ of the author, these AI generated songs will have infinite copyright, just what the industry has always wanted…
And the AI is easily exploitable and useful for clogging up the channels with things ‘sounding like’ those of actual musicians…
We can guess who will ‘own’ the AI, thus being able to put the actual human singers/composers/songwriters out of business by suing them for infringement of their AI generated compositions…
Sad it if wasn’t the truth of what will probably happen, predicted here first. Now if someone would just patent the concept of suing musicians for infringement of AI generated works, we could protect them for the next 20 years…
Re:
At the moment, works created by an AI go straight into the public domain, as copyright requires a human creator, as determined in the case of a famous monkey selfie.
Re:
But to be copyrighted, don’t they have to be created by a human? Technically, shouldn’t all AI created things be in the public domain?
If we had a sane copyright system, we wouldn’t have people using AI to create works, since creators would not be in terror of “infringing” (whether intentional or not) anyone’s copyright and being sued into oblivion.
We need a Constitutional amendment that returns copyright to its original term.
Re:
Of course we would, lmfao. You really think copyright is the reason that some people are better at writing AI programs then they are at singing?
AI could invalidate ALL copyright in the future
In theory one could use AI as a tool to write every possible note and word combination. Crosscheck those with existing works and copyright novel ones, thereby ending all new works. Hows that for promoting the progress of science and useful arts.
Re:
No, in theory you could not. Your proposed plan is the equivalent of saying AI could count every possible number.
Numbers are infinite. The universe is not.
Re: Re:
You are right.
Numbers, as a set, are infinite.
The number of distinct tones that are used in music, however, are not. The number of notes in a significant sample also are not. The product of those two is similarly not infinite.
Reduce, then, the number of samples to only those that “can be listened to”. Very much less than infinite.
AI could count these.
Re: Re: Re:
Didn’t need an AI to do that, just some computer code.
https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/music-copyright-algorithm-lawsuit-damien-riehl-a9364536.html
Re: Re: Re:
Any finite thing is necessarily less than infinity, but also, that doesn’t mean it’s feasible.
Let’s consider music, and a very restricted subset of it at that: The piano (and a simplified version of it, at that). A piano has 88 keys. Assuming only one key is struck at a time (which is incorrect — skilled pianists can do far more) and keys are struck in a fixed time interval (also incorrect — tempo is a key piece of music and can vary) and always produce the same sound (also incorrect, since a piano is an analog instrument and therefore the force with which a key will impact how loud it is, and how long a key is held will impact how long the note sounds), in other words making this as simple as possible, a two minute piano piece at two notes per second would have a possibility space of some 2^1440 notes.
This is far, far more than the number of particles in the universe.
Now think about all the complexities not included in this calculation. What if the piece is two minutes and one second? What if it’s played faster? Slower? What about with different instruments? What about multiple notes? And so on.
You’ve dramatically underestimated the possibility space here.
Re: Re: Re:2
When it comes to copyright, you don’t have to count every possible variation. If you play the first 30 seconds of a copyrighted song, on a different instrument, at a different tempo, with different dynamics, and then continue with original work, you will still be sued for stealing the fundamental structure of those first 30 seconds. Really all you need to do is generate every possible melody of perhaps four to six bars, copyright those, and you could sue all future artists.
Re: Re: Re:3
I suspect that approach — even if feasible on a technical level, which I remain skeptical of — would fly about as well as people claiming that “you can’t copyright a number and therefore all copyright is invalid because everything can be represented as a number” does.
Re: Re: Re:4 RE: you can’t copyright a number
That’s exactly the point. Copyright is out of control and in theory they are registering numbers, which is why it’s ridiculous.
Re: Re: Re:5
Copyright has issues, but anyone thinking ‘oh, it’s just a number, and you can’t copyright a number’ is indulging in the same kind of cargo-cult legalism that gets you sovcits.
Re:
That doesn’t take AI, just brute force. It would be trivial to write a simple program to generate every possible piece of sheet music, or MIDI program, etc. up to a certain length, just like writing every possible book up to a certain length. The limitations would just be processing power and storage.
Re: Re: books and music
A book is effectively just a stream of words, one character at a time. In a piece of music each character has nuance,timbre and timing and many are played simultaneously.
So the two forms are’t comparable in terms of complexity of potential combinations.
Re: Re: Re: books and music
I concede that with words, you would have to copyright a block of sentences, which have much more possibilities than music. Music is the better example.
Re: Re: Re:2
It takes less than 5 words to reach copyright’s minimum limit, i.e. the originality limit. At 5 chosen words used together is enough to make your work completely unique and thus copyright applies. So for anyone planning to dismiss copyright for number of combinations reasons, it’s kinda bad news since the legal eagles already managed to count the number of combinations already in 1800s and decided that short article titles already qualifies for copyrights.
The more unique your work is, the better copyright protection should be applied. A 20MB computer file containing text is already so unique that full 150,000 level damage awards can be applied for it.
On the other hand, even the most complex computer software can only reach about 2^{70} level complexity, and handling any more complex systems require some magic that requires superhuman powers. Still a single text file might have 28^{huge number} kind of complexity, just in the selection of letters in the file.
A movie file might contain 100Mb of data in it, and the strenght of the copyright in such files is so great that any piracy activity in hollywood movies becomes dangerous to your life. The amount of work that movies studios are putting to create these movie files is just staggering and any copyright infringement will see copyright’s maximum damage awards.
Persistent pirates can handle terabytes of data when they swap bytes on the internet. At that level it means hundreds or thousands of movies and it generally means 20 years behind bars.
Internet service providers who do not care about copyrights and are claiming to be invincible because some old law gives them bit-pipe designation where the content copyright issues are irrelevant could have thousands of persistent pirates in their network. When large number of regular pirates are together working to kill creative industries, they do have a chance of actually succeeding/destroying the content industry completely. For this level problems, the isp’s are getting 2 billion bucks damage awards/money transfers from isp’s business to the content industry when it becomes apparent that they didn’t care about copyrights enough to filter out persistent pirates from their network.
peer-to-peer networks can span over multiple isp’s which all allow opening the ports where the illegal material transfers over the globe.
Global communication networks are the final nail in the coffin of content industry. It simply isn’t profitable to create content in today’s world. Too much of your original content is being distributed without compensation to all over the globe.
Re: Re: Re:3
There’s plenty of different songs which use the same titles that would beg to differ.
If uniqueness was the benchmark for which copyright enforcement is applied, most of what Hollywood comes up with would not qualify.
You could, except that even in the most favorable situations, no judge would give an award that high. No copyright lawyer would ask for an award that high. They’re not so blinded by greed that they ask for everything, because asking for everything is a sure-fire way to make the judge angry at them and give them even less.
Except that no, maximum damage awards have never applied, certainly not at $150k per infringement. If we were to take copyright enforcement firms at their word for how many infringements take place, charging $150k per infringement for pirate communities who got taken to court would lead to fines larger than some First World economies have money. Because the $150k was never intended as a symbol of how much financial damage was done; it was lobbied for and included purely to be a deterrent. An ineffective one, at that, because it never actually happens.
Pirates have been “killing” and “destroying” the content industry ever since musicians complained that gramophones, radio and cassette tapes were collectively killing music. It didn’t happen.
ISPs might actually bother to turn in their customers if the content industry’s evidence wasn’t so regularly full of shit. Why is it the responsibility of someone else to help you to frame innocent people because you can’t be bothered to actually find out who’s guilty?
Who’s distributing Meshpage? If this was true, Meshpage would have been pirated to hell and back. And yet, here we are, watching you bitch and moan because the government of Finland hasn’t made you filthy rich yet.
Re: Re: Re:4
Sadly my protections against pirates are actually working. I used established technology (called html5 + web servers) that gives working copyright protection against pirates. How it works is that web server refuses to give users the original source files (php files) and instead web server executes the php file and gives output of the algorithm to the end user. Thus the valuable algorithms that keep web running are hidden from users and thus pirates can never copy it. The only way to copy the php files would be if you had working password to my server (or hacked the server illegally via security holes) and could download the needed php files.
This is why pirates wouldn’t be able to copy meshpage.
(note that there are ways around this, basically open source is giving one alternative solution for it)
Re: Re: Re:5
Piracy levels track interest and market success quite closely, and so no piracy = no market success or interest in the software.
Re: Re: Re:6
Only if your content owner is an idiot who forgot to protect his work against pirates.
no piracy = copyright owner’s copy protection actually works.
Re: Re: Re:7
Denuvo failed to protect games. DRM and similar measure only annoy paying customers, and fail to stop piracy, as they only need to be cracked one.
Re: Re: Re:8
But your pirates have still not cracked meshpage.
Re: Re: Re:9
What, exactly, is there to crack? If your code is so inherently inefficient it causes data leaks despite you claiming to be a minimalist when it comes to programming – not to mention your own claims that you’ve only focused on “looking nice” – I’m not convinced that there’s any software to pirate into.
And even assuming there were, all it takes is a dedicated team to break your system. The reason why nobody pirates Meshpage isn’t because its protection is good, it’s because pirated 3dsmax exists. Pirating Meshpage might actually give it some exposure beyond what you currently have, if you didn’t hate other humans with every fiber of your being.
Re: Re: Re:10
The copy protection that protects against user’s copyright infringements.
The data leaks are not necessary for the copy protection.
Yes, as in if you have something useful but which looks bad, then meshpage/gameapi builder can make it look nice. This is valuable feature, given that it’s absolutely necessary that the market contains products that are useful (but who can’t implement the feature that it looks nice), even though customer’s requirements is that all products look nice.
Re: Re: Re:11
Simply repeating your personal belief does not make it proof.
You might think so, but if your software can’t even run basic functions like putting 3D models and objects on screen without causing your machine to overheat, what do you think adding copy protection into the code is going to do? It’s not going to make the software easier to run. It’s going to make performance even worse. If we didn’t already know how full of shit you were, the idea that anyone let you near a programming language is astoundingly laughable.
Your software neither looks nice, nor does it make other things look nice, nor is it useful besides being a giant brick of shit that its creator constantly tries to pawn off as a diamond. It’s not working, Tero.
Re: Re: Re:12
If I have difficulties making software look nice after 10 years of carefully implementing the “look nice” feature, how well do you think those people who wanted their product to be useful first and looking nice only comes second in the feature list? They simply have no chance in hell making it look nice, since their focus is to find useful stuff.
I think you underestimate how difficult that requirement is.
Basically while my software cannot meet the “look nice” requirements, the other people who focus on usefulness wont be anywhere near the level of niceness than what I have available.
Re: Re: Re:13
They have teams of people working on those projects, for one. This isn’t a dichotomous choice between either looking good or being functional. But if your point is claiming that this doesn’t matter because you’re one person… then I have news for you, because plenty of solo developers exist like Lucas Pope. Award-winning solo developers, at that.
I know how difficult that requirement is, but that’s why I don’t disparage people before they might be able to help on projects. Unlike you.
Re: Re: Re:14
This solo developer got 70 million bucks as nft:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6O4xvklv2xU&ab_channel=Coffeezilla
But check the quality of the graphics he can do.
Basically solo developers can do one area well (==money in this case), but other areas (==art or code) are completely messed up.
Re: Re: Re:15
You found one guy who sacrificed art quality for moneymaking. That’s not a counterargument to the fact that developers who can do both things exist.
And for someone who claims NFTs look like shit, you seem to have no problem using Meshpage as an NFT generator. What happened to making things look nice?
I’m not the only one that thought it was the lying engine at first glance am i?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Twitter was full of artists trying to organize no-AI demonstrations on the theory that all AI stuff is copyright infringement since they scraped all the existing artist’s works and is able to reproduce those works exactly as they were in the originally scraped material.
Which is kinda good point. I kinda support such no-AI position, given that I have rejected AI technology on the theory that the database collection activities are illegal under current copyright laws.
Of course, google’s search had exactly the same problem. They scraped the web and published snippets coming from those web sites, and still they’re “freely” distributing their search results all over the planet.
But then again, youtube had exactly the same problem. They allowed users to create material and published them immediately without any copyright checking taking place. This has in traditional publishing houses been risky copyright position, when you cannot ensure that all the material that you have published is valid wrt copyright.
Proper RIAA/MPAA position is that all these services are really illegal and should be erased from the world, even though the world thinks these services are actually useful. But pirates are also thinking that their pirate feed is providing useful service by removing compensation going towards authors and also moving the content nearer to the actual end user by skipping the apparently too large distance from user’s home to the authorised vendor able to sell the product.
Thus we expect that popcorn is needed while we watch these technologies to fail in copyright courts.
Re:
Sir this is an Arby’s.
Re:
For the purpose of enforcing copyright law? No, the database collection itself would not have been the illegal part. What would be illegal is enforcing copyright on works that you do not have the enforcement rights to, which is one of the things that Prenda Law attempted and got found out by the courts.
Sounds like someone is still very angry that fair use exceptions exist.
You do know that ContentID exists, right? This claim that YouTube has no copyright checking at all simply doesn’t fly in this day and age. It’s an outright lie.
The RIAA believed that everything from radio to cassette tapes to CDs to thumb drives to computers to Internet connections should be illegal. Hell, by their definition, Meshpage would have been declared illegal several times over. If you honestly focus so much on everyone following the RIAA/MPAA position, you would have willingly destroyed Meshpage a long time ago.
But you won’t, because you’re a coward, hypocrite, and psychopath.
If you choose to make a product unavailable to another market, you only have yourself to blame when you don’t get money from that country.
You’ve been trying to outlaw storage media and computers since several decades ago. None of that has come to pass. You’ll just have to voice your anger at the government of Finland about how disappointed you are that they won’t let you rape and murder people in the name of copyright.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Sure, but I’ll just use the pirate’s popular argument here, i.e. “ContentID is not available to all authors, but only the trusted/large authors”, i.e. they’re pirating rest of the material in their content collection. They should either reject all the small developer’s content/allow contentID usage for all authors/pay significant money to content creators.
Yes. This is very good position and there has been problems with meshpage in this area. But every tech has similar challenges in enforcing copyrights, they didn’t build DRM in one day either. Failure is a part of technology development, you just need to learn from the failures and invert them so that your biggest failures becomes your biggest successes in the next iteration of the technology. It’s called “takinkääntö” in finnish, and that means “coat turn”, where you can flip failures into plans for next increment. Finnish politicians are famous for changing their opinions all the time, and tech developers can do the same thing.
It’s called “small data principle”. GameApi builder and meshpage follows that pattern. I.e. the data should be small, so that there isn’t that much data entry tasks for your monkeys spending infinite time writing shakespere’s sonates. (even though we followed the small data principles, it’s still dying for out of memory after 2GB of mem slurp)
Re: Re: Re:
The reality is that ContentID is, in fact, available to anyone and everyone to leverage. There’s been plenty of cases where smaller companies aggregate music remixes without the consent of the original creator, and use ContentID to claim monetization wherever the music is used in someone else’s content. In other words, the original creator doesn’t actually profit from ContentID’s copyright enforcement.
Now, you’re free to argue that these small content creators don’t deserve payment, because you’ve made that argument very often, especially when it comes to game streamers, reviewers and analysts. But considering that your entire point is to claim that copyright law is necessary for content creators to get paid, it is pretty damning and self-defeating when your copyright systems result in the original creator not seeing a single cent of the money you claim they’re entitled to.
Again, stricter copyright laws don’t care. You’ve been saying from Day 1, if you can’t enforce copyright at the standards that the RIAA/MPAA have set, you should shut down all operations that may be potentially illegal.
Politicians being two-faced hypocrites is not merely a thing in Finland. And that’s not something you should be emulating as a developer.
Mate, you can’t even hold yourself accountable to your own code development practices. Exactly why should anyone give you the reins of power? Why should anyone grant you the privilege to enforce laws on others? You’ve proven yourself time and time again to be a danger to civil society.
Re: Re: Re:2
Why would this small content creator get payment when the content being distributed is ripped from star wars? Are you claiming this small creator implemented yoda’s lightsaber and thus deserves chunk of the money?
What effort is it that these people do? Game streamers press record button on some software that someone else made? I don’t think that’s comparable effort to the creation of the game from scratch, which might take 20 years of some poor suckers time.
And then your streamer comes and claims that he owns the damn thing.
Re: Re: Re:3
What major content creator is ripping off Star Wars? You keep using Star Wars as an example but never actually point to anyone doing so. And in the case of an analysis or review, they’re not “distributing” Star Wars. They’re making a comment on it. You can comment on Star Wars and that doesn’t violate copyright. Again, fair use exists.
The chunk of the money that was made by the original implementation of Yoda’s lightsaber was already paid up to the original creator. When someone else uses that one sound it doesn’t cost that creator anything. For that matter you can make your own lightsaber equivalent and people generally know what you’re talking about. In any case it doesn’t lead to any kind of creator revenue apocalypse you keep insisting will happen.
Now, you’re free to argue that actually creating a game is very different from recording footage from a game and adding commentary or your own reactions on top. You’re free to claim that it doesn’t add much value on top of the original content. Which may very well be true. But again… that’s not piracy. That’s not copyright infringement. The one point of moral outrage you have over this is the idea that people shouldn’t make money on this. Which would be fair, if this was piracy. But it’s not. It doesn’t pass the legal definition for piracy. It’s literally a single person playing a game and having people in the same room watching their experience. And most streamers don’t make money on par with major game developers. Streaming videogame play is not the lucrative, one-for-one crime you claim it is; a game developer does not lose $75 because a streamer played his $75 game and showed it to the world.
The streamer owns the copyright on the gameplay, not the production of the original game. In the same way a musician owns the copyright on his performance of something by Beethoven. This is entirely within reason for copyright law. Which YOU continue to demand people follow. Are you trying to go against copyright law, Tero?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
Half of youtube is full of lightsabers and sith.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
The real problem I have with this streaming phenomenon is that the content they’re “publishing” in their streams was created with large effort.
This “large effort” is what makes their streams interesting. Noone would ever want to watch some streams if the content being published wasn’t from AAA games where tons of cutting edge special effects are being displayed. Basically streaming for unknown or low quality games simply do not exist.
The original copyright’s rule for this kind of situations where streamers copy small part of a large effort actually reads like this: “If your published work has ANY copyright infringement in it, then you as a publisher should lose ALL your income stemming from the infringement.”
That’s the rule for tiny infringements. The blatant infringements where there’s signficant amount of copyrighted material available, will see $150,000 dollars damage amounts.
Why these large sums? Because the original author already spent over $150,000 dollars for the creation of the material, and he should have opportunity to market his creations without distraction of his own works taking the market away before he gets his money situation back to plus side.
This isn’t true. Any copies or clones in the market of his own works will harm the future sales activities in the same area of world. The content simply isn’t new. They will just reject the content as “we already saw it 2 months ago from this pirate site/streaming site”…
Re: Re: Re:5
How does game streaming take away from the game developers income? It is not the same as playing the game, and the availability of play streams cam help sell a a game.
A game streamer is trying to make money is similar in practice to a software developer trying to make money, their work is built on the works of others. Indeed all of human development is built on the work of prior generations, while your views on copyright are are antithetical to human progress.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
This is complete bullshit. Proper way to think is that to create something worth using, you need to know/understand every piece from what you’re creating. And this requires that you have created it yourself from scratch. It is only via that process — creating stuff from scratch — that we can be sure that future progress is ensured. There does not need be large black boxes which are doing magic what you cannot understand how they work. Instead, you should start from smallest primitives that are available to you and build your empire using those pieces.
Sure, I’m not going to reinvent electricity to write my software. But its still dangerous position since I cannot be sure that electricity remains to be available in the future. Especially with the green hippies in charge.
This isn’t true. The copyright principles are ensuring that the technologies that are available in the market can actually be created from scratch even in the future. That the current generation of people can recreate the technologies that they use starting from pieces that are available to them. This is why copyright requires that technologies are built from scratch instead of building a house of cards that comes crashing down when it’s not been properly designed from the ground up. Keeping your card house standing is more difficult than you think, given that there’s gravity always causing problems and F=ma / newton designed his laws in such way that building stability is significant problem that current generation of people have no fucking clue how to get it working in the future.
Re: Re: Re:7
You clearly have not been looking at most of YouTube. I personally don’t have much interest in Star Wars and consume plenty of free content from critics, analysts, and gameplay streamers that don’t involve Star Wars at all.
Plenty of streamed gameplay for independent games exist, and even then, your argument is based on a very weak premise. I personally have not paid thousands of dollars to walk on the sidewalk outside my house even though it’s likely that the contract for building the road and infrastructure cost millions of dollars. When I buy groceries at the supermarket, I don’t pay several thousand dollars for a carton of eggs even though the farmer who reared the original chickens who laid them paid millions of dollars to build his farm.
You can keep imagining what you think copyright law should say all you want. Unless you’re a lawyer, or spend the money to make that become law, it’s nothing more than your own twisted fantasy.
The maximum penalty for $150k is nothing more than a ballpark figure just so you can threaten other people into risking this maximum sentence. The fact is that these damages are only “statutory”, in that they’re not intended to be a one-for-one repayment when copyright gets infringed. The truth is, to date no copyright plaintiff has ever given an itemized breakdown for how much copyright infringement has cost them. Judges have asked them for it, and plaintiffs have never been able to give an answer.
But someone else playing a video game is not the same as a copy of that video game. If someone else plays a video game and I know that person has played a video game, it does not mean I own that video game. It does not mean that I’ve played that video game. It does not mean I owe the developer money. You may personally feel otherwise, but your belief does not make this true.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:8
The process of detecting if the video you published violates copyrights:
1) divide the video to 1 second clips
2) for each clip, decide who owns the clip
3) it the result wasn’t you, you need to get a license
4) if you failed to obtain license, you’re in copyright infringement
5) If you’re in copyright infringement, you need to remove the clip from your video before publishing it.
See, the process isn’t very difficult. But all your gaming videos where you play a video game will be removed from youtube or other publishing platforms, if you manage to follow the process properly.
Re: Re: Re:9
For the sake of argument, let’s break down your alleged “proper process”.
1) There is no meaningful reason to divide everything in a piece of footage down to individual seconds. Realistically what you would be doing is looking for longer clips that may be infringing. Your Step 1 is nothing more than doing what people are already doing but in a way that’s even more inefficient and cumbersome.
2) There is no reason to decide ownership on each second. You’d still need to compare it with the bulk of the whole video and see what percent of it is infringing. Your process intentionally ignores the consideration that using some copyrighted footage for the sake of analysis or demonstration is allowed under copyright law.
3) Again, for the purpose of analysis or critique, no permission is necessary under fair use exceptions. Now some developers, angry that critics have pointed out the flaws in their product, have tried to leverage copyright claims to ban criticism of their work. Some might even be briefly successful in getting articles taken down or claiming the monetization for themselves, which under your stricter copyright laws, is the equivalent of a convicted felon taking the money from a newspaper writing about his criminal deeds. But judges routinely void these demands. The idea that copyright law can be used to stifle or prevent criticism is not a good precedent, and no judge wants to be the one who opens that floodgate.
4) You can keep getting angry that fair use exists.
5) There’d be only two ways of implementing what you’re demanding. The first way is to ask every single person, entity or company who might claim a license over what you’re using – which is so impractical, that even the RIAA themselves have been caught using photographs that they didn’t pay the original photographer for. The second way is to compare footage against a database, which you personally insisted wouldn’t be necessary because Meshpage doesn’t rely on one, so that’s also a no-go. The underlying point is that a preemptive “notice and staydown” system as proposed by the RIAA is inherently impossible. Incorrect takedowns by YouTube are more common than you think. And it doesn’t solve the problem of non-creators claiming monetization on other people’s work, particularly when it comes to game music.
The fact that you haven’t addressed the problem of “money not actually going to the actual creators” is not a surprise. You genuinely do not have a game plan beyond vainly hoping the RIAA rewards you for your YouTube hate. And frankly, they already have a huge issue with paying the artists they sue people for. They’re not going to have loose change lying around to donate to a deranged fanboy across the Atlantic Ocean.
Re: Re: Re:10
I think it would be more useful if you described what process you expect people to use to ensure that their published videos are completely free of copyright infringement. Until your process is available, we cannot properly compare which process results in better conformance to copyright laws.
Re: Re: Re:11
That process already exists. It’s ContentID, along with all the other existing tools that rightsholders already have access to in order to enforce their copyright. I’ll grant you that those processes could be improved upon, and I agree. Systems should be put in place to ensure that rights trolls can’t claim ownership of content they don’t actually own. It should be possible to trace companies making incorrect claims, and it should be a given that companies who frequently make unjustified claims should be penalized for abusing their position.
But if you want a comparison over whose system is better, all we’d have to do is consider this – did you check every second of Meshpage footage to see if something infringed copyright? If you did, how then did you fail to notice the copyright you infringed on the Five Nights at Freddy’s franchise? Clearly you failed to notice it, or the likelier scenario – you didn’t actually check every second of Meshpage footage, and get the necessary copyright permission. Once again, proving that even Tero Pulkinnen can’t match the copyright standards Tero Pulkinnen asks for.
Re: Re: Re:12
That’s youtube’s process where they expect that Youtube do not get sued. Every user need to have their own process for this. You can’t simply rely on someone else’s process to save your ass.
If you rely on someone else’s process, why not choose RIAA/MPAA process for it? It’s no worse than whatever bullshit youtube is using.
Re: Re: Re:13
Because their process is to expect everybody else to do the work needed to protect their copyrights. They will not help anybody to determine copyright status, but will sue if someone makes a mistake.
Re: Re: Re:14
Correct way to handle the situation:
1) Have your own process which YOU can trust.
a) its not platform dependent
b) it doesn’t follow other people’s rules
c) it doesn’t go to other people’s traps
d) it still follows and enforces copyrights
2) And include position of every major player to the process
a) RIAA’s position is as good as youtube’s.
b) competitors often take opposite views
(for example steam vs open source)
c) most recent is AI vs artists
d) newspapers vs social media aggregators
e) democrats vs republicans
f) Always find both sides of the battle
g) Users should be able to follow ALL OF THEM in appropriate circumstances.
Re: Re: Re:15
Literally none of this protects you from copyright trolls, as proven by the countless times they’ve intentionally sued the innocent.
The RIAA covers music, not videogames or footage of videogames. Why should they have a say in videogame-based copyright? And we know that you don’t follow your advice. We know that you don’t think that YouTube’s position is good.
Ah, don’t lie. You’ve never believed in both sides of the battle. You’ve consistently insisted that everyone can only follow the strictest possible interpretations of copyright law.
Re: Re: Re:16
Courts can detect when you’re actually confident that your actions are legal when compared to other people who will need to google how/why youtube’s actions are legal when they’re presented legal paperwork that accuses them of wrongdoing. And when the folks notice that youtube was doing illegal stuff, they’re kinda painted themselves to a corner.
They’re taking too large copyright-related risks in their business.
This is required by the law. I didn’t invent these rules. I am just sick of people who don’t even try to do it correctly when government requires strict following.
In our world, it’s either you follow is perfectly/exactly correctly or you don’t do anything. The “don’t do anything” alternative is kinda bad when government’s laws are requiring following it. So only alternative is to do it perfectly.
Re: Re: Re:17
Confidence is, by itself, not a sign of whether your legal claims actually hold any water. For reference, your friends at Prenda Law were incredibly confident in their application of copyright law, and now they’re all in jail.
Oh, there were plenty of claims that YouTube was doing something illegal, the latest claim coming from Maria Schneider who engaged an IP address-based investigator… that presented shitty evidence, then pulled out after the judge asked them to explain themselves.
You might have a better chance against YouTube if the evidence you guys keep bringing against YouTube wasn’t so regularly, pathetically weak.
Rules like your personal claims, such as “fair use should be ignored”, aren’t rules at all. They’re your interpretations. Nothing more.
The government tried it your way, then realized that they were risking the lives and personal safety of many innocent people, because scum like you don’t have the minimum integrity to spare the innocent. Governments are sick and tired of having to entertain your claims of billions of dollars being lost, year after year of your industries making even more money, raping it from their citizens.
It’s not surprising that Australia’s own government has instructed its own people to use VPNs when accessing streaming services, or governments in Germany and Taiwan have given up paying for Elsevier and opted for Sci-Hub to access research papers instead. Governments tried to do it your way, and you scammed them so hard they gave up.
So if you didn’t do copyright exactly correctly, then why haven’t you shut down Meshpage yet?
Re: Re: Re:18
I did several times shut down meshpage when there’s doubts about legalness of the material posted in it. That’s a good defense against copyright infringement that your site is sometimes down when the authors and trying to figure out what to do with some dodgy content posted to the site.
Basically the 24/7 site being up is bullshit requirement when legal eagles are requiring that you take down the material whenever there is pirated material on the site.
It’s just better if the authors do it without waiting for DMCA notices, i.e. site could be down even though you didn’t yet receive DMCA notice.
Re: Re: Re:19
One, that’s not proof of anything. Or would you accept an explanation that a pirate site has occasional downtime when the site isn’t visible or usable, therefore it has defenses against copyright infringement?
Two, that’s not good enough for your RIAA-level standards. RIAA asks for “notice and staydown”. Once it’s taken down, the RIAA expects it to never come back up.
Re: Re: Re:20
Only if the downtime is because they’re evaluating the content available in the site for copyright conformance. If the downtime is simply because they can’t get the tech to work right, it might not have desired effect for the liabilities.
Is that somehow difficult to implement? You just don’t post the same content 2nd time?
Re: Re: Re:21
So you’re saying all you need is a note saying “We promise that our downtime is due to copyright enforcement” and you’d be alright with them existing. I don’t think you understand how that would work out in reality.
Considering that the RIAA still can’t tell the difference between legal and illegal content at a glance, and the fact that they’ve demanded that people take down content ahead of time before it even gets uploaded? “Notice and staydown” might have been somewhat possible to implement, but not at the standards you require.
Re: Re: Re:13
There is no RIAA/MPAA process to choose precisely because they never had one. What they’ve always done is have someone implement a process for them, and when it inevitably doesn’t predict the future and murder someone for predicted copyright infringement, not only do they complain that it’s not harsh enough, but they also insist that the only reason why it isn’t harsh enough is because the developers must be secretly in league with or profiting from piracy.
Other entities have tried, like the people behind Article 13 and Article 17. But just like the RIAA, what they’ve proposed has never gone beyond vague promises that innocent people will not be affected, and large databases of copyrighted works would not be necessary. They were quickly found out to be either lying or incorrect, which is why the enforcement systems necessary for Article 13/17 to be implemented simply don’t exist yet. Because what is demanded from them is simply impossible.
Re: Re: Re:14
Because market demand for copyprotection is missing, the markets have not yet optimized the copyright enforcement practises. You cannot say the demands are impossible until you spent the time to research the area. But pirates (nor the rest of the market) were again lazy and didn’t bother to check the status of the area. All they have is assumptions that do not hold.
Checking the status is easy. meshpage implements the practises, and pirates have not yet cracked the protection. Checking requires that you are able to display a cube with builder tool. It only kicks in at publish -stage of the process.
Re: Re: Re:15
If there was no market demand for copy protection, Denuvo would never have existed as a company. There is a legitimate demand for copy protection services, what end users don’t like is when these services make their music, games and software worse.
You don’t have believe us. ISPs and actual tech companies have voiced their concerns to pro-copyright entities on countless occasions. Demanding that pre-emptive takedowns, without a reliable database of copyrighted works to compare to, is impossible. Their words, not mine.
If someone were to copyright the implementation of a cube on screen, Meshpage would still be held liable for infringing copyright.
Re: Re: Re:16
They should get their own castle working properly before voicing concerns about other entities. ISP’s haven’t got copyright working properly yet.
Pre-emptive takes are only needed in the world where immediate publish operation is needed. They could be evaluating all copyrights manually with 2 month delay in the publish operation, and the necessary takedowns are clearly possible. The combination feature “immediate publish” + “following copyright properly” is obviously more difficult to implement than implementing one of the requirements alone.
Re: Re: Re:17
Because that’s not their business. Roads don’t have anti-theft protection built in, but you don’t hold construction workers responsible because a thief or criminal walked over one to escape the law.
And if you choose not to provide the database to make it possible to police these pre-emptive takes, it’s your fault for not putting in the effort to make it work.
What you’re demanding is the equivalent of arresting people for a law that does not exist.
Re: Re: Re:18
It’s still illegal to run a motorbike gang membership area where gang members can hide from the police.
Re: Re: Re:19
Which would be a useful analogy for you, if ISPs inherently advertised to pirates that they were operating safe havens specifically for pirates. But they don’t.
You keep wanting to portray ISPs as lawbreakers, but it’s nothing more than a desperate ploy.
Re: Re: Re:12
Yes. It has been checked.
I have never seen any content from five nights at freddy’s franchise, and there are idiots on internet who claim to own the content (and provide free licenses to it).
Re: Re: Re:13
That will not fly in court if you are sued, so you checking methodology is fatally flawed.
Re: Re: Re:14
It does, once it becomes clear that I obtained a license to the material from scammers.
Re: Re: Re:15
That would still not protect you from fines. Stricter copyright laws would still hold you responsible for not doing sufficient due diligence and costing someone else millions of dollars in copyright losses.
Re: Re: Re:16
But your copyright minimisation practices would happily let me do such evil actions. Why did you change your mind about which level copyright is needed? Now you demand the stricter laws? Shouldn’t you be on the other side of the argument?
Re: Re: Re:17
What less strict copyright practices would do is actually acknowledge that innocent infringement exists and not nail you to the wall for something out of your control.
This sort of empathy is why the general public do not support the extremes of copyright you advocate. Because unlike you, normal people aren’t madmen.
No one demanded stricter laws except you. If you want stricter laws, you are responsible for following them. If you can’t even meet that standard, you have no right to demand that others do so.
Re: Re: Re:18
Same way if you allow copyright problems for yourself, you should allow them for other people too. So your demand that I follow stricter version is not well received.
Re: Re: Re:19
So if you allow copyright problems for yourself, then you should stop complaining about pirates. Because like you said, you should allow them for other people too.
Your own words. Not mine.
Re: Re: Re:10
This isn’t true. Even one second clip of infringing material can cause content owner to sue your ass, for example if that clip contained a scene from movie matrix that originally costed 30 million bucks to implement. Copyright law simply do not have any leeway to such blatant copying of the other people’s copyrighted works. The default rule in copyright laws is that NOTHING can be copied.
General trend in this kind of copyright lawsuits is that the courts are on the side of the content owners. The pirates who blatantly ripped off movie sequences have generally been losing their lawsuits, given that content owners spent those 30 million bucks before sueing your ass. That 30 million gives significant amount of wins for the content owners, even if pirates are copying just small segments of the movies in question.
Thus all fair use arguments or other bullshit reasons why supposedly compensation for the authors do not need to be paid according to the prices announced by content owners are simply illegal. The 30 million bucks that content owner used to create the works in question needs to be compensated for the content owner some way, and I’m hoping you have some good mechanism how that 30 million bucks gap is filled without pirates paying their share. But please, I’m all ears for possible solutions to this 30 million bucks -problem.
Re: Re: Re:11
Unfortunately for you, fair use exceptions exist. It does suck that copyright fanatics like you can theoretically sue over one second of alleged infringing content. But here’s the reality: most copyright holders don’t do this. Even musicians sue over chord progressions, not a single note played. Filmmakers don’t sue over a single still in their movies. Because to do so would cost them real time and money that they simply don’t have to enforce copyright at the level you demand.
The rest of your paragraphs are, quite simply, banking hard on the idea that amount of money spent holds any sort of relevance to what the final fines are. Which isn’t relevant at all, because it means that smaller independent companies who make films or games or music are entitled to less money if they had a smaller production budget. But that’s not how copyright law works. They, like your $30 million budge companies, are just as entitled to a $150k payout.
Even assuming the above applied, what do you think realistically happens in court? Judges in BitTorrent cases are, at best, going to divide up a fine of $150k between a larger number of seeders. You’re spending $30 million to sue for $150k. That’s barely a fraction of what you spent. It’s no wonder the math doesn’t work out the way you think it does.
When you spend 30 million dollars to develop Meshpage, then we’ll talk. Otherwise it’s just fanciful masturbation on your part, thinking that you’re sitting on something worth $30 million when in fact your bloatware is so damaging to computers nobody bothers to even pirate it.
Re: Re: Re:12
Yes this is true. This is why isp’s who ignore copyright rules are paying 2 billion bucks to content owners for the pleasure of having pirates included, but when animal rights organisation sues photographer for famous photo snapped by a monkey, they can’t collect 2000 pounds for it.
Re: Re: Re:13
And yet, the ISPs have not committed copyright infringement. There are maybe a small handful of judges who think that making someone else pay copyright holders a pound of flesh is enough to make the problem go away. It sincerely isn’t.
The animal rights organization did not sue the photographer. They helped sue on behalf of the monkey, after the photographer failed to sue newspapers for copyright money after they used the monkey selfie. The thing is, because the monkey took the photo and not the photographer, the photographer doesn’t hold the copyright. PETA doesn’t hold the copyright. The monkey could, but animals can’t own copyright. If animals could own copyright, it’d be trivial to argue that AIs could own copyright too.
Re: Re: Re:14
This isn’t true. The isp in many cases are the ones who make the material available in the internet. Take away isp and user have no internet and thus piracy problem disappears.
Wouldn’t this mean PETA has no standing for that case?
Re: Re: Re:15
And what of other users who don’t pirate? What of businesses and schools who require the Internet to operate? Of course, you’d have no problem screwing over everyone else because you think one innocent user is guilty.
PETA never had standing for the case. That doesn’t mean they’re not dumb enough to try. And it’s precisely because idiots like you keep trying to file copyright cases with no standing that stronger protections against scammers like you are needed.
Re: Re: Re:16
well, they get their internet back, when they have handled the piracy problem in their premises.
You just need to fill tons of paperwork and get a RIAA/MPAA approval (which they forgot to obtain before copying the material)…
Re: Re: Re:17
And where’s your paperwork and RIAA/MPAA approval, then? It’s not the business of companies and entities not related to the RIAA to scupper their own functions because some rando decided to levy an unsubstantiated copyright claim.
If this was the requirement, Meshpage should have had its Internet access stripped long ago.
Re: Re: Re:18
I’ll get it via two separate practises:
1) MPAA: I reject mp4/avi/mov files
2) RIAA: I reject mp3/wav/midi files
See this is just imaginary paperwork, and noone would actually purchase license to the material above. It just costs too much and takes too long time to create to the specification that I need it at. This is why it’s better to reject the whole area and create something on your own.
This is what meshpage is all about. It rejects currently popular technologies like video tech and sound technology and runs with completely different 3d opengl technology…
Re: Re: Re:19
For one, that’s not a license. Saying that you’re incompatible with popular file formats isn’t a license. It’s an admission that nobody will use your software because it’s intentionally incompatible with everything else.
You rejected the RIAA/MPAA standards, then. So if even you rejected it, why should anyone else accept it?
And where’s the license you paid for that?
Re: Re: Re:15
Would you also take away computers and all recording devices?
If copyright maximalists had their way, there would be no new culture, and they keep on selling what they hold for forever and a day.
Re: Re: Re:16
I’m a programmer, so computers are important.
But recording devices — just kill them. Noone wants to see millionth rerun of the same records over and over again.
We should be designing our future but hollywood can only provide records of the past.
Re: Re: Re:17
Destroy all your personal databases and storage devices, then, because nobody wants to see the millionth run of Meshpage over and over again.
Then we’ll talk.
Re: Re: Re:18
Sure, but how many times you’ve seen movie files or mp3 files? Since they’re alot more popular than meshpage, you must be already dead tired at seeing yet another mp4 file.
Re: Re: Re:19
More than Meshpage, to be sure, and those certainly don’t bore me. But I’m not the one who wants their storage devices to be destroyed, you are. You’re the one who has to make a case for the destruction of file storage. And if you won’t destroy your own file storage, why should I?
Re: Re: Re:8
I think you missed completely where the $150k figure is coming from. That’s the amount that content owners will need to pay to get the content that you enjoy to the market.
Re: Re: Re:9
First you said it was 30 million bucks, now you’re saying it’s $150k? Which is it?
In any case, this is not how much it costs. Again, fines for copyright infringement are statutory, not based on any proven amount of money spent by copyright holders. If it cost copyright holders $150k to put their content into the market, they would be able to show records proving it. Yet, they don’t. The best that copyright holders can do is assume damages, which judges often reduce in court.
Re: Re: Re:10
yeah, 30 million is for the 1 second scene in movie matrix.
150k is the money invested in the development of meshpage.
Both are correct numbers that represents the kind of money amounts needed to create content and get ownership of the assets.
Re: Re: Re:11
Also both are investments with the risk that the product will never recoup the cost of its creation.
Re: Re: Re:12
Guess it does not help if your customers get the product without compensation.
Re: Re: Re:13
No, it doesn’t. But then the government is not responsible for making sure that every possible business venture succeeds. Which is why the legal system gets suspicious when you rely on copyright trolling to make your money.
Re: Re: Re:14
That’s a poor reason for your insistence that piracy is necessary part of copyrighted work’s life.
This wouldn’t be necessary if the default behaviour of your end users werent filthy criminals.
Re: Re: Re:15
Claiming that criminals exist is not an excuse for you to hurt, harass, extort, rape, and murder the innocent.
Your heroes in Prenda Law and Malibu Media made the same claims at one point. Now their business empires lie in ruins, and their principals jailed. I look forward to when Meshpage is likewise taken down and your psychopathic ass gets thrown in prison for trying to rape in the name of copyright.
Re: Re: Re:16
Good luck with your task of changing the currently available laws (towards stricter than god -version)… That’s your only chance — make laws stricter. Otherwise it’s not going to happen.
Re: Re: Re:17
Those are laws that you not only insisted were needed, but those are laws that you have claimed multiple times already exist. You’re the one who has been demanding for “stricter than God” standards of copyright law. Not anyone else.
Re: Re:
This isn’t Prenda’s biggest problem relating to copyrights. Their biggest problem is that the content that their sex videos are displaying is just a scam. While copyright attaches to every copyrighted work created by man on the planet, there are different levels of copyright protection available. Prenda’s videos are just arranging girls to visit the place and pressing record button to create a recording of the visit. Then their theory is that that activity gives them serious copyright rights to the recorded material. Basically the record button press gives them similar kind of copyright than what you get when you snap a photo with ordinary non-video camera. And it does not give the kind of rights to the material that developers of hollywood movies enjoy. And that’s their biggest mistake.
This is the main reason why Prenda’s copyright cases are failing. It has nothing to do with the scandals that the press is boasting about.
Re: Re: Re:
You’d be wrong there. Copyright law does, in fact, protect films of a pornographic nature in the same way that copyright law protects Hollywood films.
Now some have argued that pornography should not qualify for copyright protection because it doesn’t advance “science or the useful arts”, and the porn industry has vigorously fought to shed this reputation, in the same way they’ve desperately attempted to shake off the damage to their reputation from copyright trolls. That’s a battle the porn industry will have to fight on their own, but it was a fight they never had to have in the first place if they’d simply not used the scummiest lawyers on the planet to begin with.
The biggest problems that Prenda had with their cases were plentiful. They sued innocent people and physically went to their houses to harass and extort them. They showed up in court in states where they were not licensed to practise law. They were found to have forged signatures and used LLCs and other methods to hide their involvement. They showed up in cases where they had no rights to prosecute on behalf of studios for copyright infringement (there are records of studios who didn’t even know John Steele or Paul Hansmeier was representing them).
What nailed them in the coffin was the fact that they tried to film their own smut, then sue over it getting pirated. Which the courts do not look kindly on, because you have to declare this sort of bias and vested interests to the court. Everything that Prenda Law did is a scandal, something the judges recognized, and that’s how they got nailed to the wall.
These are the kinds of copyright enforcers you personally boast about befriending, Tero. It’s no surprise that scum like them attracts scum like you.
Re: Re: Re:2
Yes. Authors need to stick together against a wider world that doesn’t care about your income, or whether their piracy is against the law or whether they wouldn’t steal a handbag, a car or a movie. You simply wouldn’t teleport a car…
Re: Re: Re:3
You might actually accomplish this if only you didn’t openly admit to despising other humans. But that’s what I’ve noticed about pro-copyright freaks – when push comes to shove, you waste very little time turning on each other. It happened to Prenda Law when they got arrested, quickly doing their best to claim that the other was truly responsible for masterminding the crimes.
The original quote was “you wouldn’t download a car”, but with 3D printing, you might be able to. It’s already happened with guns. As for teleporting a car, if you could master that sort of technology safely, it’d solve plenty of transportation problems. People would jump at the opportunity to teleport cars.
Re: Re: Re:4
Technology is significantly more pleasant to work with. For example, my 3d engine was broken for 3 days and none of you goons found out about the problem and send me a bug report. I.e. human communication fail to solve the problem.
But when I deal with technology, it only took 3 days to track a underlying sdl library from writing outside of the memory area reserved for such writes. I.e. the problem could be workarounded when dealing with technology alone.
Your humans are inferior and cannot even find significant problems in our technology.
Re: Re: Re:5
My guy, your software has no users. You’ve intentionally boasted on multiple occasions that your software is designed to have no users. You’ve never so much as solicited requests for testers, not even from kindergarteners or students who you continue to insist are your software’s target audience.
That you found a bug nobody else did is not anyone else’s failure.
“Only”? Working with an actual IT team, it takes them less than an hour to find security holes. Maybe a couple more in order to diagnose the source of hacks or security leaks. So apparently when other people work, three days is too long for you, but when you work you refer to three days as “only”, like anyone else would have taken longer?
I mean, you don’t need to lie to anyone else that you have a team. You’ve made it clear that you have no team because you can’t stand working with other people. And when you treat everyone else like dirt, it’s no surprise no one wants to work, test, or market for you.
Re: Re: Re:6
Then howcome I didn’t receive any bug reports for your efficient team?
This isn’t a good reason for your “more eyeballs and bugs are shallow” -process to fail so miserably. I haven’t yet received a bug report (valid ones only count, not some feature requests for removing copyright infringement checks)…
Re: Re: Re:7
The team I work with deals with the bug reports experienced by the company I work with. It’s not our business to do free tech support for you, and even if we wanted to, you hate other humans too much for other people to work with you. Why would anyone extend free work to someone who openly declares he doesn’t want it?
You can keep blaming your lack of reports on the imaginary users you don’t want using your software, and waste time finding the bugs yourself. By this time next year, Meshpage will continue to be a bug-ridden, unusable mess of a Blender counterfeit, and you’ll still be here thinking that cocksucking the RIAA will force the government of Finland to make you rich.
Re: Re: Re:8
So your company is not trying to make the world a better place, but they’re still stuck in their own silo and making decisions only based on what the world looks like in their own basement.
Do you know that missile silos that do not follow whatever is happening in the world are kinda dangerous since they might start a nuclear war when their own silo says the magic words: launch the missiles to your enemy.
Re: Re: Re:9
How cute. You think departments working in silo is an accurate analogy for actual missile silos. Thank goodness you’ll never wield that sort of destructive power.
So effectively (as far as the singers go) they’ve reinvented vocaloid… and UTAU… and Synthesizer V Studio.
It’s been over a decade, you would think they’d notice.
Re:
Sure looks like it. Must be a slow news day when tech from 2004 is the breaking news.
Re: Re:
Adding to this, the first AI singer live concert in the US happened in 2011 in Los Angeles. Songs have been available on CD and streaming services for a good while, too. Spotify has multiple Vocaloid songs with over 50 million playbacks.
We don’t hear about this in the news much because it is not new.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
Here’s something fresh new article that praises my 3d engine: https://meshpage.org/article.php
Re: Re: Re:2
I do not see a byline on that article, so I will assume that it is written by you, and not worth the bytes that is consumes.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
Does it matter who wrote it, if it just contains all the facts?
(in reality the horror is awful marketing material — web3’s main feature is that all useful content is behind paywall and internet will only have marketing material)
Re: Re: Re:4
Well, it continues the trend of you claiming how great your software is, while the market continues to reject it.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5
Yes, but on the background there are facts where the market didn’t even bother to check what features are available in the software. When they can’t even get a cube to the screen with the software while significantly better features are available, it’s no wonder that they reject it. But the rejections are thus made wrongly/with bad reasons. 2^{600} combinations of features are available in the feature list, and they don’t even bother to get cube to the screen. It’s just lazy.
Re: Re: Re:6
You keep insisting this, and yet you don’t even bother to reach out to people working in your field to show how their work could be improved with your technology. Meanwhile, folks using Pixar and Blender tech have been putting 3D models to screens for decades while you stew in your failure and anger.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:7
Here’s the standard response to pessimists like you:
https://meshpage.org/pessimist.php
Re: Re: Re:8 Your life's work?
The fuck is that? A self affirmation blog? A shit ass advertisement? Some horseshit you half heard at a yoga retreat?
Re: Re: Re:4
You just told us it doesn’t contain a single fact at all.
Re: Re: Re:5
You shouldn’t let the real world prevent a good story from being told.
Re: Re: Re:6
So no facts at all, then. Just like every single claim you make regarding copyright law.
It is nothing short of a blessed relief that you do not hold any sway, power or influence in government or society.
Re: Re: Re:7
I do not care about this. It was already taken away from me when I was less than 2 years old. Basically having power of influence in government requires that you can display nice looking suit and big smile to voters enough that they consider you better choice for running the government. This was never available to me. While I know the “make it look nice” is important feature, I didn’t implement it to the person(==myself) like government’s politician -job requires, but instead I implemented it to gadgets and managed to create over 150 million gadgets that implement the requirement. Thus also meshpage has “make it look nice” feature implemented. And it implements nothing else.
Re: Re: Re:8
Just like every other human on the planet who isn’t born into riches or power. This is not the huge injustice you want to paint it as.
And yet you think that the government owes you several million dollars because you own a personal vanity project.
Correction: You worked on one part of a gadget that was produced 150 million times. While that is at least somewhat notable, it’s not something that will convince others to worship the ground you walk on.
And still somehow manages to cause memory leaks in every computer you run it on. That’s not an achievement. That’s actively trying to destroy your prospective users’ machines. Why the hell should anyone pay you money to destroy their own computer?
Re: Re: Re:9
I expect red carpet and rose-leafs and an appropriate respect from peers.
Re: Re: Re:10
No one is going to offer red carpets and rose leaves to someone who openly claims that people should be murdered for being suspected of copyright infringement.
The appropriate respect that should be given to you is a padded cell where you can do no substantial harm to others.
Re: Re: Re:11
Maybe you shouldn’t be doing copyright infringement then?
Re: Re: Re:12
Maybe you should live in the real world, where there are limits to punishments and penalties under law. No judge is going to accept forced organ donation as an acceptable punishment for being accused of copyright infringement.
It’s honestly surprising you haven’t murdered your own parents yet, considering that they infringed on the copyrights from their parents’ DNA to make you.
Re: Re: Re:13
is this supposed to be an insult. It kinda fails. Bringing in my parents is like bringing in nazis in trolling. You basically automatically lose when you do that…
Re: Re: Re:14
It’s not an insult; it’s the logical progression of your copyright extremism and disgust for other humans. To you, other humans are nothing but walking banks for you to empty their money.
You claimed that Russia waged the war against Ukraine in the name of copyright. You have no moral high ground here.
Re: Re: Re:15
Yeah, that’s why I haven’t received any money from other humans during the last 50 years.
Re: Re: Re:16
Nokia paid you for your work, Tero. Don’t lie.
Re: Re: Re:6
That assumes your story was good to start with, and your story isn’t a good story.
I’ve been playing guitar for over 20 years but I suck at writing lyrics. Maybe I should be using this ChatGPT thing.
Thanks for sharing. It is very helpful for me and also informative for all those users who will come to read.
Narrator voice: It was, in fact, a self-affirmation blog and shit-ass advertisement.