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

31–40 of 114 posts

Re: Copyright reform is necessary for national security

#31

Post by jarsin »

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?

As per your second question the copyright office came out this week with the following guidance:

The new guidelines say that AI prompts currently don’t offer enough control to “make users of an AI system the authors of the output.”(AI systems themselves can’t hold copyrights.) That stands true whether the prompt is extremely simple or involves long strings of text and multiple iterations. “No matter how many times a prompt is revised and resubmitted, the final output reflects the user’s acceptance of the AI system’s interpretation, rather than authorship of the expression it contains,”

They are suppose to come out with guidance regarding the first question in a month or so.

Re: Copyright reform is necessary for national security

#32

Post by martin-t »

chromanoid wrote: post #26
martin-t wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So you think all work produced with the help of LLMs should by required to be open sourced under a copyleft-like license?

That is actually an intriguing idea and at least aligned with the reasons I use AGPL for my code.

Re: Copyright reform is necessary for national security

#33

Post by ranger_danger »

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?

If I looked at a painting before making my own similar one, did I break copyright?

Re: Copyright reform is necessary for national security

#35

Post by ranger_danger »

artninja1988 wrote: post #27
mettamage wrote: post #25

This site is blocked in the Netherlands. Does anyone have an archive.is or archive.ph of it?

http://archive.today/uJmE4

This site is blocked by Cloudflare from many VPN providers. Is there an alternative?

Re: Copyright reform is necessary for national security

#36

Post by jprete »

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/…

None of those services could exist today if copyright didn't exist, because streaming services wouldn't be able to compete with free downloads. I think Patreon and Kickstarter are how creative work is funded in that world.

Re: Copyright reform is necessary for national security

#37

Post by [deleted] »

ranger_danger wrote: post #33
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?

If I looked at a painting before making my own similar one, did I break copyright?

[deleted]

Re: Copyright reform is necessary for national security

#38

Post by JumpCrisscross »

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…

Maybe a middle ground is mandatory, standardised licensing after 14 years and then public domain after 28. (Where do the multiples of 7 come from?)

Re: Copyright reform is necessary for national security

#40

Post by chromanoid »

martin-t wrote: post #32
chromanoid wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So you think all work produced with the help of LLMs should by required to be open sourced under a copyleft-like license? That is actually an intriguing idea and at least aligned with the reasons I use AGPL for my code.

Honestly, I only thought about the models, assuming that work that uses them, will also inevitably be incorporated into them. But maybe it is a good idea to actually include the produced works. It could create a nice incentive for rich corps to pay artists to create something AI free / copyleft free.

If we could extract correct attribution and even licensing out of work that was produced with AI, I don't think it would help that much. I would even assume that especially in this case the rich would profit the most. They wouldn't care having to pay thousands of artists for the pixels they provided to their AI generated blockbuster movie. It would effectively exclude the poor from using AI for compliance reasons. Or even worse rich corps monopolize the training data and then they can create content practically for free, while indies cannot use AI because they would have to pay traditional prices or give the rich corps money for indirectly using their training data.

Post reply on HN