While that’s true, it clearly worked and massive channels used it. So why is YouTube’s avoiding any responsibility and trying to kill it as quickly and silently as possible? Like, I get that sometimes you’ll have to drop support for things (even things you unofficially support), but there should be a phase out period during which people can either backup and re-upload videos with those captions to preserve them. They could and should honestly provide a heads up for that or even help them out.

Now they are literally decimating people’s hard work and on top of that pissing off actual partners. Not saying it will be successful, but cutting into people’s business like that is the kind of thing you can get sued over. So it doesn’t even make sense to take that risk from what we know.

An important feature is that you can basically download (and thus, own) the music you pay for (in many formats too).

I think you might misunderstood what Bandcamp is aiming for here. They’re explicitly trying to still allow it when humans are using it (responsibly) as tools. This is essentially a ban on AI where no human is involved (or not involved enough), where the music produced is focused on quantity over quality (slop). That’s a fine and nuanced distinction for a music distribution platform in my opinion.

I doubt they would just blanket scan all music and ban that which they think is AI (aside from how that’s practically impossible). That’s the kind of thing a lazy big tech company would do. I wouldn’t be surprised if this will just end up being on a report basis, at the very least with human verification once steps like banning would be taken. Because otherwise it would be pretty disastrous for the reasons you mentioned, since it would ban legitimate artists. Not to mention the bar of “substantially AI” would need to be judged by someone.

Ah, no worries, none taken. Have a good one.

Not quite sure what you’re trying to say. The article literally says:

Bandcamp’s policy targets the latter end of that spectrum while leaving room for human artists who incorporate AI tools into a larger creative process.

Which is what I’m applauding and affirming, so I’m not sure what you’re saying I’m saying is opposite to what the article says.

Good on them on recognizing that slop is undesirable and shouldn’t be encouraged, but that a full ban also kills the nuance of creative freedom and creates painful situations where a single AI tool anywhere in the process (even indirectly) gets hard work rejected, which could hamper aspiring creatives in their ability to (start to) get their work out there and (start to) make a living when they are not what (most) people have issue with.

It’s kind of a chicken and the egg problem though, that happens on any new place, so it’s tough to sell them on that unless they already like what’s being talked about. I think it’s probably better to stick to the fundamentals of the fediverse and what makes it better than a centralized platform. In this phase of Lemmy’s popularity we need people that stick around and build communities, and they can only really be enticed to do that based on the merits of the platform.