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

81–90 of 138 posts

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

#81

Post by N_Lens »

lp4v4n wrote: post #56

In the past, many developers were against copyright law because they saw it as a way for big corps to stifle competition and curb creativity in order to increase their profits. A lot of people right now invoke the violation of the same copyright law because the tide has changed and now companies, by ignoring copyright law, are hurting artists/smaller companies and/or not contributing back or unlawfully closing the co…

The law (and the system/society) generally serves capital, instead of humans.

That's why big corporations can both use copyright against smaller companies and individual creators, while also ignoring the same copyright laws when it suits them.

I think this is unjust. As we see capital concentrate, we see more injustice as the power balance becomes more lopsided. This isn't good for anyone, not even the super wealthy because it undermines the stability of the whole system upon which their wealth depends.

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

#82

Post by N_Lens »

The law (and the system/society) generally serves capital, instead of humans. That's why big corporations can both use copyright against smaller companies and individual creators, while also ignoring the same copyright laws when it suits them.

I think this is unjust. As we see capital concentrate, we see more injustice as the power balance becomes more lopsided. This isn't good for anyone, not even the super wealthy because it undermines the stability of the whole system upon which their wealth depends.

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

#83

Post by tzs »

observationist wrote: post #68
lp4v4n wrote: post #56

In the past, many developers were against copyright law because they saw it as a way for big corps to stifle competition and curb creativity in order to increase their profits. A lot of people right now invoke the violation of the same copyright law because the tide has changed and now companies, by ignoring copyright law, are hurting artists/smaller companies and/or not contributing back or unlawfully closing the co…

Well, no, not really - there's no "they" in general. Copyright law is constructed by design for large institutions, lobbying, case law, and attendant legislation allow it to be abused by data hoarders. It was never built to protect individual creators or authors or artists, despite the PR campaigns and marketing for it. There are just companies big enough to ignore those institutions for which copyright law was creat…

> 99% of commercial profits come from the first 5 years after any piece of media gets published - book, music, film, artwork, etc.

Many songs make far more profits when they are featured in popular movies or TV shows decades or more after their first publication than they do in their first 5 years.

It is also not uncommon for songs released before a future big star becomes a big star to make much money (or even lose money), but when they become big people their early work sells.

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

#84

Post by bitwize »

masklinn wrote: post #16
sharkjacobs wrote: post #2

Most people in my social circles are various flavours of anti-AI, and it drives me crazy how many of them, who were once stridently anti-copyright, are now using copyright as one of the great pillars of AI opposition

So people are pitting two foes against one another and that’s supposed to… be bad?

"Let them fight."

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

#85

Post by socalgal2 »

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.

Nina Paley was against copyright, and she's still against copyright.

Her position is all artists copy

https://ninapaley.com/category/creativity/

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

#86

Post by lstodd »

tzs wrote: post #83
observationist wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, no, not really - there's no "they" in general. Copyright law is constructed by design for large institutions, lobbying, case law, and attendant legislation allow it to be abused by data hoarders. It was never built to protect individual creators or authors or artists, despite the PR campaigns and marketing for it. There are just companies big enough to ignore those institutions for which copyright law was creat…

> 99% of commercial profits come from the first 5 years after any piece of media gets published - book, music, film, artwork, etc. Many songs make far more profits when they are featured in popular movies or TV shows decades or more after their first publication than they do in their first 5 years. It is also not uncommon for songs released before a future big star becomes a big star to make much money (or even lose…

I think the point is that copyright should not be exclusively about publisher's profits from big stars.

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

#87

Post by at1as »

scrubs wrote: post #80

This is a particularly well written article. Plaudits to poster and original writer. It took me from no clue to a context or sieve I could organize the noise through. And darn it, it made it look easy. Like the John Daily line it's so good I'm mad. Sheesh, thanks a lot!

Thanks, I'm glad it helped! I still think it's too long, but kudos to those that made it through

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

#89

Post by jraph »

aleph_minus_one wrote: post #76
direwolf20 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You agree with them

Sorry, because I am not a native English speaker I misunderstood something. :-(

Your parent used a double negation, the sentence simplified would mean something like "any people I've met was on Aaron's side" :-)
Post reply on HN