Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Is A.I. The Death of I.P.?

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 309 posts

Re: Is A.I. The Death of I.P.?

#111

Post by axus »

visarga wrote: post #99
stefan_ wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is funny, the moment the absence of IP can benefit large companies it's just a fiction, a made up concept, not too serious at all. Of course you go onto the OpenAI corporate pitch page and it will proudly say "respects your IP by not training from it!", that's not the part we are looking to get rid of apparently? That's very real?

This is a clever trick, making out corporations to be the beneficiary - who is the real beneficiary? The one who prompts, because they can use the output of the model to solve their problems. In the meantime AI developers make cents on 100K tokens and are mostly in the red. Why not put the issue where it is - it's a debate about public empowerment with AI vs incumbents protecting their copyrights. Especially for open…

The outrage as packaged by the media really does mirror the anger against Napster from 25 years ago. I seem to recall the small-time musicians were more excited about Napster, though.

Re: Is A.I. The Death of I.P.?

#112

Post by NoboruWataya »

mlsu wrote: post #43

Copyright is not a real thing. It's a fiction. Subverting copyright law is not like subverting the laws of physics. What happens when you subvert copyright law is some guys with guns, in either an overt way or a subtle one, force a trade of your imaginary resource (copyright) for the real resource (money), through licensing or fines. Debate about what AI means for copyright is really a debate about what we choose to…

Leaving aside the semantics of what is "real" - yes, that is the point, that is why the article exists. "Is A.I. The Death of Gravity" is a nonsense question, "Is A.I. the Death of I.P." is not, precisely because humans get to decide the answer. We have developed certain norms and institutions over hundreds of years and now we must decide whether to scrap them in the name of technological progress. How we decide the question will have huge implications for how wealth and power are distributed in our society.

Re: Is A.I. The Death of I.P.?

#113

Post by distortedsignal »

mplewis wrote: post #102
echelon wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Serfdom used to be a real thing. Dowry payments used to be a real thing. Butter churning used to be a real thing. Copyright law is, and will be, mutable. In just about a year, kids will be making entire Pixar movies from home. (The content will probably be Skibidi toilet related, but of Pixar scale and scope.) How that reconciles with copyright, you've got me. It doesn't. It's a domain mismatch. It's completely outmo…

None of what you described is quality content that anyone actually wants to watch.

Interestingly, that doesn't matter for copyright.

A six-year-old filmmaker has as much claim to copyright protection as Spielberg and Tarantino. Just because one uploads to YouTube and one is paid millions of dollars by a major movie studio, it doesn't mean that they're different in the eyes of the law.

From what I understand, once a work is created, copyright is assigned to that work's creator. That creator may then license that work however they want. Quality doesn't factor in.

Re: Is A.I. The Death of I.P.?

#114

Post by noitpmeder »

artninja1988 wrote: post #90

> Bellos, a comparative-literature professor at Princeton, and Montagu, an intellectual-property lawyer, find this kind of rent-seeking objectionable. They complain that corporate copyright owners “strut the world stage as the new barons of the twenty-first century,” and they call copyright “the biggest money machine the world has seen.” They point out that, at a time when corporate ownership of copyrights has boomed…

Remove copywriter protections and small time authors have the potential to earn EVEN LESS.

Why write books or any creative text based content when the second it's available it will be hoovered into the next AI training cycle and can be reproduced in part or in whole by users who almost definitely do not know who you are in the first place.

Re: Is A.I. The Death of I.P.?

#115

Post by rngname22 »

kopecs wrote: post #68
mlsu wrote: post #43

Copyright is not a real thing. It's a fiction. Subverting copyright law is not like subverting the laws of physics. What happens when you subvert copyright law is some guys with guns, in either an overt way or a subtle one, force a trade of your imaginary resource (copyright) for the real resource (money), through licensing or fines. Debate about what AI means for copyright is really a debate about what we choose to…

Do you not believe that societal constructs are real? What makes (fiat) money a real resource and copyright an imaginary one? What about this logic: Debt is not a real thing. It's a fiction. Subverting contract law is not like subverting the laws of physics. Simply don't pay your bills! What happens when you subvert contract law is some guys with guns, in either an overt way or a subtle one, force a trade of your ima…

Really confused to see your comment flagged.

The parent comment basically says "copyright is not a physical good or law, therefore we may disregard it".

As if the same couldn't be said for any verbal agreement, sexual consent, property rights, whatever.

They ought to be arguing why this _particular_ verbal agreement/social contract is not worth enforcing or practicing, rather than dismissing the entire category.

Re: Is A.I. The Death of I.P.?

#117

Post by visarga »

throwboatyface wrote: post #82
k__ wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But they have a point. Copyright law is already different from country to country.

Some countries have roundabouts. Some countries let you make a right turn on a red light. Traffic law isn't any more universal than copyright law. All law is made up but that doesn't make it less real.

But AI models are not limited to specific countries, they can be downloaded and run anywhere. Train in Japan (unrestrictive rules), then use in US.

Re: Is A.I. The Death of I.P.?

#118

Post by fulladder »

mlsu wrote: post #43

Copyright is not a real thing. It's a fiction. Subverting copyright law is not like subverting the laws of physics. What happens when you subvert copyright law is some guys with guns, in either an overt way or a subtle one, force a trade of your imaginary resource (copyright) for the real resource (money), through licensing or fines. Debate about what AI means for copyright is really a debate about what we choose to…

Contracts are not a real thing. It's a fiction. Subverting contract law is not like subverting the laws of physics. What happens when you subvert contract law is some guys with guns, in either an overt way or a subtle one, force a trade of your imaginary resource (a contract) for the real resource (money), through licensing or fines.

Re: Is A.I. The Death of I.P.?

#119

Post by huytersd »

mlsu wrote: post #43

Copyright is not a real thing. It's a fiction. Subverting copyright law is not like subverting the laws of physics. What happens when you subvert copyright law is some guys with guns, in either an overt way or a subtle one, force a trade of your imaginary resource (copyright) for the real resource (money), through licensing or fines. Debate about what AI means for copyright is really a debate about what we choose to…

Well that’s a stupid argument. A good argument is that AI is in accordance with copyright law already since there are no reproductions. In the rare cases where there are reproductions, they can be DMCA taken down like we already do with post LLM output filters.

Re: Is A.I. The Death of I.P.?

#120

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

arrosenberg wrote: post #109
echelon wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you stealing from your lord, serf? Perhaps you should be churning the butter, not thinking for yourself. (I kid, I kid!) It's going to be just as easy to make a movie or a song as it was to write this comment. I'm working and researching at the edge, and I promise you that the entire world will be in awe of these next 12 months. Go play with Suno for a taste. I'm a senior engineer, and now I'm tab completing Rust…

> It's hard to believe we've come this far, and it's only going to keep climbing in capability. Or we hit the top of the sigmoid curve and just have fancy autocomplete.

I don't understand why the autocomplete meme is so compelling to people. How is drawing a picture, which modern AI systems are already capable of, "autocomplete"?
Post reply on HN