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

AI didn't break copyright law, it just exposed how broken it was

jasonwillems.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 138 posts

Re: AI didn't break copyright law, it just exposed how broken it was

#31

Post by mindcandy »

realusername wrote: post #6

Personally I feel that the excessive duration of copyright just weakens authors arguments against AI. If even WWII-era documents are still under copyright, building a model respecting that would be impossible.

I would very much like to see us return to something resembling the original copyright terms. Like: Manually file for 22 years of enforcement. Then manually file 20 years later for 22 more.

You could create some great masterpiece at 18 and live off of it until you are 62 and starting to take social security payments.

Re: AI didn't break copyright law, it just exposed how broken it was

#32

Post by Spivak »

amarcheschi wrote: post #11
klustregrif wrote: post #7

Copyright infringement use to be the absolute worst crime imaginable if you asked the tech industry, that is until they started doing it themselves at scale and now they are claiming it’s the law that’s broken, it’s crazy.

I think you can replace copyright with whatever the law wants to break Last but not least, generating csam and deep fakes porn on social medias and having to see it called free speech

All of that last one really says is that broadly speaking the average person has no idea what free speech actually is and the kinds of things that it covers. I put it in the same bucket as like the young kids uploading to YouTube with the comment no copyright infringement intended thinking it's like plagiarism.

Re: AI didn't break copyright law, it just exposed how broken it was

#33

Post by ppqqrr »

copyright is not “broken,” it was always a two-faced scam designed to protect “owners” at the expense of creators. don’t expect this blatant hypocrisy to kill copyright, either - death of copyright is a slippery slope leading straight to communist utopia, and the death of the global acqui-parasite class

Re: AI didn't break copyright law, it just exposed how broken it was

#34

Post by Permit »

klustregrif wrote: post #7

Copyright infringement use to be the absolute worst crime imaginable if you asked the tech industry, that is until they started doing it themselves at scale and now they are claiming it’s the law that’s broken, it’s crazy.

> Copyright infringement use to be the absolute worst crime imaginable if you asked the tech industry

Every day hundreds of links to archive.is are posted[1] to this website to get around paywalls. Technologists built file sharing tools to subvert copyright. It has never been one of the worst crimes imaginable in tech circles.

[1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=pastWeek&page=0&prefix=tru... (85 instances in the last week)

Re: AI didn't break copyright law, it just exposed how broken it was

#35

Post by repelsteeltje »

falloutx wrote: post #20

Basically a rage bait. If the law was bad, does it make it okay to violate it? In fact Anthropic is literally paying $1.5B on the copyright settlement, that indicates its completely a settled issue that AI companies have been violating this law. Some have been caught and fined, others are been lucky or that influence over the government. > Copyright Law Was Built for Human Scale No where in the law it has this kinda…

I think build for, here means was intended to work at or with human scale in mind. Not be limited to.

Laws usually don't describe the bigger societal context in which they were conceived.

Re: AI didn't break copyright law, it just exposed how broken it was

#36

Post by avaer »

Permit wrote: post #34
klustregrif wrote: post #7

Copyright infringement use to be the absolute worst crime imaginable if you asked the tech industry, that is until they started doing it themselves at scale and now they are claiming it’s the law that’s broken, it’s crazy.

> Copyright infringement use to be the absolute worst crime imaginable if you asked the tech industry Every day hundreds of links to archive.is are posted[1] to this website to get around paywalls. Technologists built file sharing tools to subvert copyright. It has never been one of the worst crimes imaginable in tech circles. [1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=pastWeek&page=0&prefix=tru... (85 instances in the la…

You might be looking at a small time horizon.

What about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Open_Letter_to_Hobbyists ?

Re: AI didn't break copyright law, it just exposed how broken it was

#37

Post by realusername »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #23
realusername wrote: post #6

Personally I feel that the excessive duration of copyright just weakens authors arguments against AI. If even WWII-era documents are still under copyright, building a model respecting that would be impossible.

> If even WWII-era documents are still under copyright, building a model respecting that would be impossible. "We can't do this legally, so we should be allowed to ignore the law." If you can't build a model while respecting licenses, don't build a model. I don't want copyright to exist, at any duration, and I certainly think it should be much shorter than it is. However, as long as it exists, AI should not get any e…

If you can't do something which looks reasonable within the laws, it means that the laws have to change.

I don't see how building such a model of historical documents would impact authors (which most of them are dead anyways).

Re: AI didn't break copyright law, it just exposed how broken it was

#38

Post by aleph_minus_one »

klustregrif wrote: post #7

Copyright infringement use to be the absolute worst crime imaginable if you asked the tech industry, that is until they started doing it themselves at scale and now they are claiming it’s the law that’s broken, it’s crazy.

> Copyright infringement use to be the absolute worst crime imaginable if you asked the tech industry

This is rather the opinion of the copyright-industrial complex, as Spivak implied in his comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46874194) by referring to Hollywood.

The attitude of the tech industry has always been much more vague (example: Google Books), and people from the hacker culture, who often work as programmers, are traditionally rather sceptical of at least the concrete manifestation of the copyright system ("information wants to be free", circumvention of paywalls, Guerilla Open Access Manifesto, ...).

Re: AI didn't break copyright law, it just exposed how broken it was

#39

Post by scotty79 »

klustregrif wrote: post #7

Copyright infringement use to be the absolute worst crime imaginable if you asked the tech industry, that is until they started doing it themselves at scale and now they are claiming it’s the law that’s broken, it’s crazy.

To be honest I don't care. Whatever helps the copyright industry burn is my ally.

Re: AI didn't break copyright law, it just exposed how broken it was

#40

Post by iso1631 »

AlienRobot wrote: post #21
wtetzner wrote: post #5

> If you paint a picture of Sonic the Hedgehog in your living room, you are technically creating an unauthorized derivative work Is this even true? It might violate a trademark, but I don't think it would violate copyright law unless it was a copy of an existing picture.

It's not true. You don't need "authorization" to create a derivative work. You do need a license to distribute copyrighted works, including derivatives. And this only matters when you are distributing it to a sizable audience. For example, if you rent a movie, you can watch it with your family. Nobody is going to sue you for distributing the movie with 5 people in your room. That's pure nonsense. Same with music, boo…

UK law, and I assume other countries, specifically says that playing the movie to the public is a breach of copyright, not playing it to your family.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/19

Post reply on HN