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

Copyright reform is necessary for national security

annas-archive.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 114 posts

Re: Copyright reform is necessary for national security

#21

Post by martin-t »

chromanoid wrote: post #8
sam_lowry_ wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Publishing weights? Meh. Publishing code and data would lead to abolishing copyright.

Copyright is just not prepared for AI. Training with copyrighted material could become "officialy legal" under copyleft terms, at least when the amount of training material exceeds a certain threshold.

The issue is treating "AI" as something special. It is just derivative work.

They are called large language _models_ for a reason. They are just statistical models of existing work.

If anybody seriously thought they were intelligent, they'd be arguing for giving them personhood and we'd see massive protests akin to pro-life vs pro-choice. People (well, ML companies) only use the word "intelligence" as long as it suits their marketing purposes.

Re: Copyright reform is necessary for national security

#22

Post by 8note »

jazzyjackson wrote: post #6
TheAceOfHearts wrote: post #2

I hope to see copyright duration go down to a reasonable length within my lifetime. There's tons of creative derivative work which builds upon existing content which cannot be sold due to copyright. The way I think about IP is that if you grew up with something, by the time you're an adult it should be possible to remix it in any way you like, because it's part of your culture. Nobody should get to lock down an idea…

14 years as originally intended would be fine. All the classic movies up to 2010, and I still have to pay a subscription to watch, and lots of them are unavailable because the studios want to haggle over licenses for 50 year old properties? It's the kind of thing that might drive a man to pirate. If your book hasn't made you rich in the first 14 years after publishing, I'm sorry, audience just isn't that into you. (I…

if you do suddenly become popular, you can write a second book, and get involved in TV or movie adaptations of it.

GRRM isnt included on ASOIAF content because hes the copyright holder, but because his influence makes people want to see the shows

Re: Copyright reform is necessary for national security

#23

Post by [deleted] »

can16358p wrote: post #17

I honestly don't understand why this is not the case already. Actually copyright should be even less-enforceable. Information/access to data/works should be totally free and there should be other ways to support the creators. For example I could easily download MP3s of music and MP4s of series/movies but I don't: simply because of two reasons: - I want to support the artist (to an extent as possible) - Using Spotify/…

[deleted]

Re: Copyright reform is necessary for national security

#24

Post by fsckboy »

RyanShook wrote: post #18

I’m afraid LLMs are making copyrights obsolete and unenforceable. If an author uses DeepSeek to write a book, piece of music, application, or patent did they break copyright? Is the new work protected if this is disclosed?

that does not make copyrights unenforceable

Re: Copyright reform is necessary for national security

#26

Post by chromanoid »

martin-t wrote: post #21
chromanoid wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Copyright is just not prepared for AI. Training with copyrighted material could become "officialy legal" under copyleft terms, at least when the amount of training material exceeds a certain threshold.

The issue is treating "AI" as something special. It is just derivative work. They are called large language _models_ for a reason. They are just statistical models of existing work. If anybody seriously thought they were intelligent, they'd be arguing for giving them personhood and we'd see massive protests akin to pro-life vs pro-choice. People (well, ML companies) only use the word "intelligence" as long as it suit…

I agree, but it's derivative work that infringes almost indiscriminately on all publicly available cultural goods and can be very useful while doing so. That's why I think copyleft is somewhat a fitting consequence.

Re: Copyright reform is necessary for national security

#28

Post by EnergyAmy »

fsckboy wrote: post #24
RyanShook wrote: post #18

I’m afraid LLMs are making copyrights obsolete and unenforceable. If an author uses DeepSeek to write a book, piece of music, application, or patent did they break copyright? Is the new work protected if this is disclosed?

that does not make copyrights unenforceable

The sheer volume of uncopyrightable work will soon kill the system. Let us dance on its corpse

Re: Copyright reform is necessary for national security

#29

Post by Kim_Bruning »

kevingadd wrote: post #11
pavpanchekha wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Realistically, the copyrighted works that are most valuable to training machine learning models, at least if we go by The Pile as typical of training data [1] is: - Web pages; hard to argue that royalties are due since these are publicly available for free - Scientific papers; these do cost money but the copyright is typically owned by scientific publishers - Github, Stack Exchange, HN (yes); these are freely availab…

Scientific papers are available on web pages so they're publicly available for free too right? I can download an ISO or installer of almost anything if I go to the right website, so all software is already free? If you're going to ignore the existence of copyright and licenses we should extend it to everything that's ever been posted on the internet, not just "web pages". Why shouldn't all books and films count as fr…

> We risk destroying the framework that enables valuable creative works or new technologies to be developed in the first place

I think we are starting to see not just historical empirical data but also strategic intelligence that this assumption might be somewhat inaccurate. - which is what Anna's archive is pointing out here in the context of AI development and copyright restrictions.

Re: Copyright reform is necessary for national security

#30

Post by martin-t »

kevingadd wrote: post #11
pavpanchekha wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Realistically, the copyrighted works that are most valuable to training machine learning models, at least if we go by The Pile as typical of training data [1] is: - Web pages; hard to argue that royalties are due since these are publicly available for free - Scientific papers; these do cost money but the copyright is typically owned by scientific publishers - Github, Stack Exchange, HN (yes); these are freely availab…

Scientific papers are available on web pages so they're publicly available for free too right? I can download an ISO or installer of almost anything if I go to the right website, so all software is already free? If you're going to ignore the existence of copyright and licenses we should extend it to everything that's ever been posted on the internet, not just "web pages". Why shouldn't all books and films count as fr…

I am surprised by how quickly I get downvoted to hell any time I try to propose that people should be compensated for their work fairly. And I get replies like the above, full of fallacies, which basically feel like trolling. So first, thank you for a sane reply.

Now, it boils down to the typical issue of a current system being bad and clearly not serving its stated purpose so the choice is whether to abolish it or whether to reform it (and how).

And just like any other time people have to agree on something, the simplest-to-describe solution (abolishing) will get a huge following because the more fair solutions (reform so it actually protects and rewards creators) are way, way more complex.

I fundamentally think if you build on other people's work, they deserve 1) credit 2) compensation according to what percentage of your work is based on theirs.

We could for example compare the performance of the same model depending on which parts of the training data you omit. If you omit all copyrighted work and the result is useless, we know the copyrighted work is responsible a large part of the value.

Post reply on HN