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

US Copyright Office found AI companies breach copyright. Its boss was fired

theregister.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 410 posts

Re: US Copyright Office found AI companies breach copyright. Its boss was fired

#91

Post by jasonjayr »

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #49
Zambyte wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It took me a while to be convinced that copyright is strictly a bad idea, but these two articles were very convincing to me. https://drewdevault.com/2020/08/24/Alice-in-Wonderland.html https://drewdevault.com/2021/12/23/Sustainable-creativity-po...

The first article is saying that "Copyright is bad because of corporations", and I can kind of get behind that, especially the very long term copyrights that have lost the intent, but the second article says that artists will be happier without copyright if we just solve capitalism first. I don't know about you, but that reads to me like "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch you must first invent the univers…

But in this idealized copyright-free world, those self-publishing companies could just as easily take Penguin's top sellers and reproduce those.

The thing that'd set apart these companies are the services + quality of their work.

Re: US Copyright Office found AI companies breach copyright. Its boss was fired

#92

Post by jobigoud »

kmeisthax wrote: post #70
tempeler wrote: post #18

I think, A new chapter is about to begin. It seems that in the future, many IPs will become democratized — in other words, they will become public assets.

They aren't going to legalize, say, publishing Mario fangames or whatever. They're just going to make copyright allow AI training, because AI is what the owner class wants. That's not democratizing IP, that's just prejudicial (dis)enforcement against the creative class.

Millions of pages of fan fic based on existing IP have been written. There is a point where it doesn't really make sense trying to go after individuals especially if they make no money out of it.

If we enter a world where anyone can create a new Mario game and there are thousands of them released on the public web it would be impossible for the rights holders to do anything, and it would be a PR bad move to go after individuals doing it for fun.

Re: US Copyright Office found AI companies breach copyright. Its boss was fired

#93

Post by noirscape »

Zambyte wrote: post #75
SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first article is saying that "Copyright is bad because of corporations", and I can kind of get behind that, especially the very long term copyrights that have lost the intent, but the second article says that artists will be happier without copyright if we just solve capitalism first. I don't know about you, but that reads to me like "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch you must first invent the univers…

> If an artist produces a work they should have the rights to that work. That would indeed be nice, but as the article says, that's usually not the case. The rights holder and the author are almost never the same entity in commercial artistic endeavors. I know I'm not the rights holder for my erroneously-considered-art work (software). > If I self-publish a novel and then penguin decides that novel is really good and…

It may surprise you, but artists need to buy things like food, water and pay for their basic necessities like electricity, rent and taxes. Otherwise they die or go bankrupt.

In our current society, that means they need some sort of means to make money from their work. Copyright, at least in theory, exists to incentivize the creation of art by protecting an artists ability to monetize it.

If you abolish copyright today, under our current economic framework, what will happen is that people create less art because it goes from a (semi-)viable career to just being completely worthless to pursue. It's simply not a feasible option unless you fundamentally restructure society (which is a different argument entirely.)

Re: US Copyright Office found AI companies breach copyright. Its boss was fired

#94

Post by otabdeveloper4 »

mattxxx wrote: post #51

Well, firing someone for this is super weird. It seems like an attempt to censor an interpretation of the law that: 1. Criticizes a highly useful technology 2. Matches a potentially-outdated, strict interpretation of copyright law My opinion: I think using copyrighted data to train models for sure seems classically illegal. Despite that, Humans can read a book, get inspiration, and write a new book and not be litigat…

[flagged]

Re: US Copyright Office found AI companies breach copyright. Its boss was fired

#95

Post by mjburgess »

stevenAthompson wrote: post #65
mattxxx wrote: post #51

Well, firing someone for this is super weird. It seems like an attempt to censor an interpretation of the law that: 1. Criticizes a highly useful technology 2. Matches a potentially-outdated, strict interpretation of copyright law My opinion: I think using copyrighted data to train models for sure seems classically illegal. Despite that, Humans can read a book, get inspiration, and write a new book and not be litigat…

Doing a cover song requires permission, and doing it without that permission can be illegal. Being inspired by a song to write your own is very legal. AI is fine as long as the work it generates is substantially new and transformative. If it breaks and starts spitting out other peoples work verbatim (or nearly verbatim) there is a problem. Yes, I'm aware that machines aren't people and can't be "inspired", but if the…

I fear the lack of our ability to measure your mind might render you without many of the legal or moral protections you imagine you have. But go ahead, tare down the law to whatever inanity can be described by the trivial machines of the world's current popular charlatans. Presumably you weren't using society's presumption of your agency anyway.

Re: US Copyright Office found AI companies breach copyright. Its boss was fired

#96

Post by aurizon »

Ned Ludd heirs at last win - High Court rules the spinning Jenny IS ILLEGAL!. All machine made cloth and machines must be destroyed. This is the end of the road for all mechanical ways to make cloth. Get naked, boys 'n girls = this will be fun!

Re: US Copyright Office found AI companies breach copyright. Its boss was fired

#97

Post by ronsor »

renewiltord wrote: post #79

I wonder when general internet sentiment moved from pro-piracy to IP maximalism. Fascinating shift.

AI has made people lose their minds and principles. It's fascinating to observe.

In the meantime, I will continue to dislike copyright regardless of the parties involved.

Re: US Copyright Office found AI companies breach copyright. Its boss was fired

#98

Post by SketchySeaBeast »

jasonjayr wrote: post #91
SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first article is saying that "Copyright is bad because of corporations", and I can kind of get behind that, especially the very long term copyrights that have lost the intent, but the second article says that artists will be happier without copyright if we just solve capitalism first. I don't know about you, but that reads to me like "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch you must first invent the univers…

But in this idealized copyright-free world, those self-publishing companies could just as easily take Penguin's top sellers and reproduce those. The thing that'd set apart these companies are the services + quality of their work.

Is not part of the quality of the work the contents of the book? What are these companies putting within the pages? We've taken the greatest and longest part of the effort and made it meaningless.

Re: US Copyright Office found AI companies breach copyright. Its boss was fired

#99

Post by WesolyKubeczek »

ceejayoz wrote: post #83
mattxxx wrote: post #51

Well, firing someone for this is super weird. It seems like an attempt to censor an interpretation of the law that: 1. Criticizes a highly useful technology 2. Matches a potentially-outdated, strict interpretation of copyright law My opinion: I think using copyrighted data to train models for sure seems classically illegal. Despite that, Humans can read a book, get inspiration, and write a new book and not be litigat…

> Despite that, Humans can read a book, get inspiration, and write a new book and not be litigated against. You're still not gonna be allowed to commercially publish "Hairy Plotter and the Philosophizer's Rock".

No, but you are most likely allowed to commercially publish "Hairy Potter and the Philosophizer's Rock", a story about a prehistoric community. The hero is literally a hairy potter who steals a rock from a lazy deadbeat dude who is pestering the rest of the group with his weird ideas.
Post reply on HN