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

191–200 of 309 posts

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

#191

Post by thot_experiment »

robertlagrant wrote: post #98
thot_experiment wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When it costs zero to produce a copy of a novel is the moral choice to create artificial scarcity to preserve it's value in our current system of value assignment, or is the moral choice to fight to change and improve the system to more align with the reality that novels exist in a post-scarcity world? Do we really want to deny people something that costs nothing in order to preserve the status quo? Perhaps it's the…

Does that mean novel writing would only be for those who are already independently wealthy? How would that actually work?

I'm not claiming to have worked out how to make this all function. I'm just pointing out that the cost of duplicating a novel approaches zero and the assumption that the way we're assigning value is the only one that works leads to a world where we must deny people things they could have in order to preserve their value. This does not seem morally correct to me. I do not need to have a solution in order to identify a problem. Perhaps we could make strides toward a future where you don't need to be independently wealthy to write a novel by having some sort of a UBI scheme.

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

#192

Post by [deleted] »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #189
ricardo81 wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the GP's point was it's different rules for big co vs individuals breaching the same idea.

> GP's point was it's different rules for big co vs individuals breaching the same idea My point is it isn't. Individual copyright infringement is virtually unenforced today. To the extent it was in the last decade, the penalty was a fine. Meanwhile, OpenAI is being sued by the New York Times [1] and various writers [2]. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/27/business/media/new-york-t... [2] https://www.reuters.com/t…

[deleted]

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

#193

Post by [deleted] »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #189
ricardo81 wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the GP's point was it's different rules for big co vs individuals breaching the same idea.

> GP's point was it's different rules for big co vs individuals breaching the same idea My point is it isn't. Individual copyright infringement is virtually unenforced today. To the extent it was in the last decade, the penalty was a fine. Meanwhile, OpenAI is being sued by the New York Times [1] and various writers [2]. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/27/business/media/new-york-t... [2] https://www.reuters.com/t…

[deleted]

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

#194

Post by ricardo81 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #189
ricardo81 wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the GP's point was it's different rules for big co vs individuals breaching the same idea.

> GP's point was it's different rules for big co vs individuals breaching the same idea My point is it isn't. Individual copyright infringement is virtually unenforced today. To the extent it was in the last decade, the penalty was a fine. Meanwhile, OpenAI is being sued by the New York Times [1] and various writers [2]. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/27/business/media/new-york-t... [2] https://www.reuters.com/t…

I don't think you have a point, the original poster was talking about individual indiscretions (20 years ago also) vs wholesale scraping of billions of people's copyrighted work for corporate gain, today.

Some lawsuits don't change that fact.

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

#195

Post by tivert »

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…

> 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...

That reasoning applies to murder, too. After all, a bullet through your mom's brain is just a physically allowable reconfiguration of the position of some atoms.

So you're making a true point, but a useless one, since you're operating on the wrong level of abstraction.

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

#196

Post by galdosdi »

eimrine wrote: post #156
efsavage wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the sense of Sapiens†, yes, copyright is a fiction, but so is money, or any law or contract or agreement. In as much as it affects people's lives and societies and economies it is "real". The question of the article isn't about realness, it's whether it can evolve or survive this latest shift. † https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapiens:_A_Brief_History_of_Hu...

The obelisk symbol after Sapiens word put in the manner it is being put after the names of dead people emparrassed me a little.

Can you please clarify this cryptic comment? The OP just used a common variation of asterisk, and I am really confused what your beef with it is.

"in the manner it is being put after the names of dead people " is a total non sequitur in this context, how is that in any way related to the discussion or anything the OP said?

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

#197

Post by EdwardDiego »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #176
silveira wrote: post #160

I find it revealing that some decades ago when teenagers were copying mp3s in their rooms for their own enjoyment it was piracy, crime, reprehensible, police, prisons, etc. When corporations are doing mass copyright infringement, we are talking about death of IP or changing the copyright laws to accommodate them.

> when teenagers were copying mp3s in their rooms for their own enjoyment it was piracy, crime, reprehensible, police, prisons, etc. When corporations are doing mass copyright infringement, we are talking about death of IP or changing the copyright laws to accommodate them It's been over a decade since an individual was prosecuted for digital piracy [1]. Longer since anyone was threatened with jail time. When it was…

Sure, they don't prosecute, they just threaten you into a settlement. Is that any better?

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

#198

Post by JumpCrisscross »

ricardo81 wrote: post #194
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> GP's point was it's different rules for big co vs individuals breaching the same idea My point is it isn't. Individual copyright infringement is virtually unenforced today. To the extent it was in the last decade, the penalty was a fine. Meanwhile, OpenAI is being sued by the New York Times [1] and various writers [2]. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/27/business/media/new-york-t... [2] https://www.reuters.com/t…

I don't think you have a point, the original poster was talking about individual indiscretions (20 years ago also) vs wholesale scraping of billions of people's copyrighted work for corporate gain, today. Some lawsuits don't change that fact.

> individual indiscretions vs wholesale scraping of billions of people's copyrighted work...some lawsuits don't change that fact

Over the last decade, individual indiscretions have not been punished. Wholesale scraping is being punished. Some lawsuits do challenge the hypothesis that corporates' copyright violations are being treated more leniently than individuals'.

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

#199

Post by JumpCrisscross »

EdwardDiego wrote: post #197
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> when teenagers were copying mp3s in their rooms for their own enjoyment it was piracy, crime, reprehensible, police, prisons, etc. When corporations are doing mass copyright infringement, we are talking about death of IP or changing the copyright laws to accommodate them It's been over a decade since an individual was prosecuted for digital piracy [1]. Longer since anyone was threatened with jail time. When it was…

Sure, they don't prosecute, they just threaten you into a settlement. Is that any better?

> they don't prosecute, they just threaten you into a settlement. Is that any better?

Objectively, yes. Paying a settlement in private is better than being publicly prosecuted and then put in jail.

That said, it's still no cakewalk. Do you have a source for individuals settling copyright claims? I'm not finding any recent stories nor surveys.

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

#200

Post by [deleted] »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #198
ricardo81 wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you have a point, the original poster was talking about individual indiscretions (20 years ago also) vs wholesale scraping of billions of people's copyrighted work for corporate gain, today. Some lawsuits don't change that fact.

> individual indiscretions vs wholesale scraping of billions of people's copyrighted work...some lawsuits don't change that fact Over the last decade, individual indiscretions have not been punished. Wholesale scraping is being punished. Some lawsuits do challenge the hypothesis that corporates' copyright violations are being treated more leniently than individuals'.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN