Nothing shows this is "the end of copyright as we know it".
What is shown is that in 99% of cases AI-generated content cannot be captured under copyright law.
However, that is a problem for the different industries because that means they cannot capture these new revenue streams to which they feel entitled.<p>What I find extremely troubling is that they're using language like "copyright reform" similar to what you'd hear from EFF or other copyright activists, masquerading as ethical protection for artists or things of the sort.
Except that they are not really addressing the inconsistencies that the "digital property" concept entail; it cannot make sense from a logical standpoint, so it's just a kludge.
So, "artistic interpolation", which has always been available to semi-skilled artists, becomes the argument for a new fully totalitarian view of copyright.<p>The entertainment industry was basically entirely built on top of pilfered public domain culture. It's constantly providing artists with abusive contracts, when it's not doing much worse, e.g. Harvey Weinstein.
It seems to me that all this is a show of crocodile tears to justify a new massive capture of what falls under copyright to be able to rent-seek in perpetuity.
Fundamentally I think the gold standard should be that anything generated by ai is public domain and that dmca anything that using copyrighted work.<p>But at the end of the day, the issue at hand is really the way copyright works.<p>Since so far the "copyright" we got at the moment is mostly in practice only ever a right for the middleman (publisher, record companies, etc. ) which are important to the industry just not remotely as beneficial to the actual creator(s).<p>If there was a clear cut licensing system (license to stream, license to use once, lifetime license and ai training license) it would solve potentially the ai issue, since some of the profit would go to the creator.<p>But since copyright is based on who owns it (based on usually capital purchase) like a monopoly, instead of an inherent creator(s) , it's at odds with the creator(s) and automation.
>, <i>synthetically generated AI voices are causing displeasure among voice actors, who have recently found clauses in their contracts demanding rights to use their voice data to train synthetic voices.</i><p>this is where I think the law needs to step in very quickly. What's being taken away from actors here is their very identity because that is where the value in their recognizable voice is. There needs to be an inalienable right to one's own likeness. Here in Germany we already have something like it (Recht am eigenen Bild/Right to one's own image). Otherwise you're enabling essentially a form of digital servitude.
I would very much like to have an AI whom you can ask to have any band cover any song in existence.<p>However, if you make one, you will top the list of most internationally wanted criminals.