Denmark's Copyright Law & AI - solution
For this post in particular, I would love to hear what other people say. This is what I could come up with as far as solutions go:
As I expressed, I believe applying copyright to everyone’s likeness perpetuates our status (in the eyes of government and businesses who profit off of our information) as product and also places uneccessary burden on humans when the issue is AI being used. Copyright can also be bought, so how likely is it that vulnerable people in bad situations would be willing to sell their copyright? Pardon me for the slippery slope but we already know that we are willing to degrade ourselves to survive, given stories from impoverished women who have escaped the sex industry, and we also know that people in power are depraved, be they politicians, celebrities, or entire government functions like the FBI. It is extremely safe to assume the worst and prepare for it. Pedophilic men would love copyright over your daughters bodies if they can’t have your daughters physically.
That is, using that copyright for AI porn. This is a serious issue which has been used to abuse and hurt women who deserve protection against this. My position against this proposed copyright bill in Denmark (and any other place) does not mean I am against protecting people against it. I think the better solution is in two parts:
- People realize how far government surveilance reaches (it reaches into the hardware of every single computer, phone, printer, and “smart” device) and recognize that they don’t use Google, Instagram, Discord, for free. Yes, you use them for “free” but those companies have to make money to keep the servers running. They need to make some sort of profit for the time they take to continue providing that “free” product. Solution for these companies? The things you post, text, search, are not yours; they are data that is being sold. When you share media of yourself, that is the trade-off companies are getting for your consumption of media and dopamine satisfaction from reactions to your media. Result: people become much more aware and frugal with how they use social media, to the point where sharing pictures of ourselves decreases significantly.
- We regulate the AI itself and NOT people. It shouldn’t be “you need consent or copyright in order to generate porn” it should be “you can’t generate porn.” It should be “it is sexual abuse to generate porn of a person,” leaving the burden of the issue NOT on people1 and also hopefully nullifying the possibility of over-regulation when it comes to creative generation.
I realize that I am isolating the issue of pornography when harmful use cases of AI deepfakes does indeed go beyond this. I am just using it as the most powerful example for my arguments. I have not studied the law so admittedly I don’t fully know how to deal with this sort of problem but things like generating real people being gored probably also ought to be regulated in some way. However, there is an obvious grey area when it comes to “harmful depictions” (making someone say something they didn’t, satire that goes “too far,” etc) but the equally as obvious answer is you can take the person who made that generation to court for defamation.
Once again, the issue is not copyright and is not AI. The issue is how people use and abuse AI, just as people can abuse other creative mediums.
This article was last edited 1 month, 2 weeks ago
Reply via email
Here "people" means the regular person, innocent actors, or potential victims. Obviously I am intending for consequences to be placed on the person who prompts evil generation, not on the generation machine itself.↩