Thank you very much.
It's great to have everybody here.
Before doing this, I was a Canadian artist for 20 years. I was a songwriter.
One part of this conversation that's really important is to distinguish the difference between when it is a tool and when it is the creator itself being the AI. It's really important that we think of artists as being entrepreneurs, as small businesses. They are very agile. They have moved through massive technological changes. I agree that they will use these new technologies as a tool.
That's not what people are resistant about. That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about how we can empower artists as small businesses. When we empower artists as small businesses, one of the great assets is their copyright. We have a system in the market to license copyright. It's been developed over a long time. This is what we're trying to figure out. Can a similar model be put onto the new world of AI and generative AI where I can put in “write me a David Myles song” and it sounds like my other songs and uses my voice but I didn't have anything to do with it other than my previous songs? It's about transparency licensing.
The other question that needs to be brought up is opting out and this idea of, well, if you're not up for it.... Certainly, we respect the IP of other small businesses, such as pharmaceuticals. What does opting out look like in terms of giving people the option to say it isn't for them and they don't want to do it?
I'll start with you, Erin.
Do you have any thoughts on how to position ourselves in a place where we can empower? We don't want to stifle technology. We want it to be used as a tool. I don't think anybody's a Luddite here. Artists certainly move with the times. How do we protect their assets, and how do we embolden them as small businesses?