“This ‘groundbreaking’ AI proposal that they gave us yesterday, they proposed that our background performers should be able to be scanned, get one day’s pay, and their companies should own that scan, their image, their likeness and should be able to use it for the rest of eternity on any project they want, with no consent and no compensation. So if you think that’s a groundbreaking proposal, I suggest you think again.”

  • dudebro@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    24
    ·
    1 year ago

    Right. Do you know the difference between a need and a want?

    It’s not like these people are surviving off of peanut butter sandwiches.

    Please, tell the starving kids of Africa those in LA aren’t making enough money.

    • Djtecha@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      What’s your point here? Are you just chaffed by the terminology? The point is there’s a lot in the industry that are making a substandard wage. And now those at the top want to even take that away to make a few more pennies.

      • dudebro@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        20
        ·
        1 year ago

        My point is that I don’t care for people who want more money. Those who need it should come first.

        Greedy, entitled people have been conflating to the two to fool others into thinking they always ‘need’ more. Just look at these comments. Some people really don’t know the difference between want and need.

        • TowardsTheFuture
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          So… you want the rich to get richer because why bother to save anyone but the poorest of the poor?

          • dudebro@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            11
            ·
            1 year ago

            No, I think copyright and patent laws need to die.

            This will stop both parties from getting richer at everyone else’s expense.

            • TowardsTheFuture
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              But this is about companies not wanting to have to pay for entry level actors ever again, making it even harder to get into unless you’re already rich, also meaning less jobs for everyone but those already rich. Meaning the entertainment industry pockets even more and wealth inequality (and thus likely the velocity of money in related areas) in the entertainment industry gets even worse than it already is. Yaaaay.

                • LouNeko@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Sorry for the wall of text but I just don’t get your motivation for that thinking besides not being able to accept that life will never be fair.

                  We have means to protect our physical property. Copyright and patents are just a form of protection for intellectual property. If we get rid of patents and copyright, we could use the same argument to allow burglaries and theft.

                  Copyrights are to some extend a way to stop others from profiting of your work but its also a register of originality. A good real world example is researching blues and soul songs. Since a lot of them predate copyright laws (or, due to African American origin were less likely to go through copyright procedures during time of segregation) figuring out who the genius behind a melody or poetic lyrics was, gets quite messy.

                  Patents are a different story. They often refer to ideas that are not set in motion yet. This can be due to limitations in the patent holders ability to act upon his idea. Limitations are often monetary or lack of networking and experience. A patent guaratees that the person who came up with something has enough time to develop a plan to bring his idea into reality. Furthermore, if a person sees no way of reaching this goal he can sell or open the patent to let others try. Most (corporate) patents aren’t for things but for procedures anyway. Everybody can think of some magical device that does whatever and patent it. But figuring out how to do a complex process in great detail and efficiency is where the real value of labor lies.

                  If we abolish patent law - as soon as an idea is formulated the entity with the biggest capability would scoop it up because they already have a foot in the game and the necessary funds to back it up. Essential somebody could come up with a solution to humanities problems and would have to buy his own invention from somebody else. This would either induce secracy and demotivate progress, or be the exact opposite of what you wanted. The people that need money would be left in the dirt by people who already have it.

                  We already have the reality of Chinas very loose interpretation of copyright and patent laws (especially foreign ones) for consumer goods. And as a consequence, Chinese off-brand goods aren’t exactly the creme de la creme of quality manufacturing. The term “Chinese Knock-Off” is tied to a balant copy of unprotected originality. While all the high quality Chinese made parts are a product of enforced contracts and quality control procedures most of which are detailed in aforementioned patents.

                  I’m aware of the issue of corporation sitting on patents or investing in R&D just to be the first to patent something without actually using the new technology to avoid making their current tech (and income) obsolete. But these issues pale in comparison to the consquences of abolishing patent law.

                  And to bring the discussion back to the topic of the post, the issue goes even further. The copyright doesn’t just involve a persons idea or product, but their whole likeliness. Actors already have to put in the work to maintain their apperence and somehow the studio now gets to own all of that. Its already hard enough to break into the industry even as an background actor, but now the studio scans you and says, “thanks, your services are no longer required, go devote your life to another skill or craft”. Money aside, ownership implies that the studios can use your likeliness hower they please. What stops a studio from saying “Either you will show up for 20h shoots for the next week with minimum pay and shut up about it, or we will release a video of you raping a child.”? Because as history has shown Hollywood is moraly so far above that. If not for solid copyright laws, those would be plausible consequences.

                  On the other hand, if studios could save a few bucks and not pay their actors, would streaming services suddenly become cheaper? Would ticket prices at cinemas go down? Be real here. Somebody will line their pockets and its not the people who need the money.

                  • dudebro@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    Nobody ever said life is fair.

                    If you’re having trouble understanding my point, I can put it in clear and concise terms for you.

                    The disparity in wealth should shrink instead of grow.

                    I didn’t read that wall of text. If you agree with the above statement, copyright and patent laws need to die. I assume you think the disparity in wealth should grow instead of shrink, that’s why you’re defending making money off of imaginary property. Please correct me if I am wrong in my assumption.