this post was submitted on 10 Aug 2023
3 points (100.0% liked)
TechTakes
1490 readers
32 users here now
Big brain tech dude got yet another clueless take over at HackerNews etc? Here's the place to vent. Orange site, VC foolishness, all welcome.
This is not debate club. Unless it’s amusing debate.
For actually-good tech, you want our NotAwfulTech community
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The AI-generated parts of these kind of "covers" generally have exactly two easily identifiable parts - the original singer's melody and intonation, combined with the voice of an actor playing the cartoon character. While it's done without the consent of either, I still think it falls under mashup/parody, with the AI magic making the whole thing sound better for relatively less effort. It's not like using a comittee of uncredited artist to make something entirely new, and then pass it as one's own.
I agree and don't think the cover itself is objectionable. Covers and remixes are a valuable and essential part of musical tradition and this is a good piece of art even though it's derived from the work of Yuzuki Ryōka and SOAD without approval.
The "plagiarism machines" part is about the way machine learning companies use unpaid and underpaid labor of millions and pass that off as the work of a quasi-sentient machine, often with the explicit aim of replacing the countless creative workers whose work was used to build the mashup machine. I think I'm actually pretty anti-copyright but at least the rules should also apply when it's a tech corp cribbing from masses of proles.
A cartoon cat singing a nu-metal song about ADHD while sounding like Marianne Faithfull with a cold is the least we deserve in return.