471–480 of 559 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You could also ask why the other side agreed to that settlement. It's not a one-way street.
It was about piracy, though? Not fair use.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the marginal value that the next buyer would buy Well the argument is that they should pay for the right to produce derivative works not for the physical copy.
Given the specific of the "derived works" being produced, do you feel obliged to pay royalties every time you cite or use some knowledge acquired from a book during your daily life?
> derived works
It's not evident that any works are being produced in the legal sense. Since LLM outputs are not considered copyrightable it's probably closer to using a search engine.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For corporations sure. For individual authors that's certainly not fair. Especially since it makes it easier for corporations to exploit their work without paying them anything. > If it's good enough for patents, I don't see why it isn't good enough for copyrights Because there are fundamentally differ concepts and serve different purposes?
I don't think they are very different in concept, other than one covers physical goods (and also procedures to make physical goods), and the other covers writings. The purposes of both are: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." Like, this is a made up regime with a specific intent.…
They would generally make most of their money early (in the couple of years following when the content is released). Individual authors would be much more affected, it might take years for your book to become popular. Also imagine if a studio decides to make a movie or tv show just right after your copyright expires, they wouldn't pay the author anything and just have higher profit margins.
> The fact that we treat copyrights and patents differently is an accident of history
Patented inventions and technologies have some sort of direct practical value. Society does not really benefit much if anyone is allowed to created derived works based on any copyrighted content without compensating the author.
> a copyright free Cars under my proposed regime.
I don't think cars are copyrighted unless you want to make an exact copy of it you shouldn't run into any issues.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was about piracy, though? Not fair use.
What does that matter? They were sued and the group suing them accepted at $1.5B settlement instead of something theoretically much larger and precedent-setting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And no, no AI company has ever come to us and asked to run training on all of our scanned copies The value of most very old books for AI training is very low. You don’t really want your AI training data to start biasing toward outdated writing styles. Most of the valuable knowledge has been covered again in modern texts in more depth and detail. There is interesting value in old texts and it’s important to have the…
If you only care about facts, maybe. Even then I'm sure there are countless facts not described outside of old books. I have a hard time believing that text valuable to humans would not be valuable to AI.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Scanning books by taking them apart into singular pages and scanning those pages is faster and cheaper. AI training is a numbers game, so they want faster and cheaper. What happens to the pages after? No one needs them anymore, so they get mulched and recycled. That would be the dominant scanning method even if copyright wasn't a thing. But then again - if copyright wasn't a thing, there would be much less need to sc…
Think about that last point for a moment. Our “rights to read” are diminished significantly with digital works as compared to printed works. Right of resale. Right to lend. In the end, digital publishing just isn’t right and will lead to massive gap in our historical records. They require active curation and cannot be preserved simply by resting on a dusty shelf.
I see it as opposite. I can hand someone the complete contents of a public library on a thumb drive. Delivering that to their door is going to be much trickier.
Reading and distribution (pirate like) has been made MUCH easier, with non-physical distribution. I'm always carrying a 1" thick book in my pocket, that I can read wherever I am. I was ecstatic when I switched over to digital. I could read anywhere!!!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think they are very different in concept, other than one covers physical goods (and also procedures to make physical goods), and the other covers writings. The purposes of both are: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." Like, this is a made up regime with a specific intent.…
It would also make it much easier for corporations to exploit authors. They would generally make most of their money early (in the couple of years following when the content is released). Individual authors would be much more affected, it might take years for your book to become popular. Also imagine if a studio decides to make a movie or tv show just right after your copyright expires, they wouldn't pay the author a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But this must then follow for all forms of works, why just books? Every company whose original creator dies must be converted into a public company within 20 years of founder's death for the public benefit as well if that's the case. If I wrote it, I own the copyright on it, why should I or my future family give away something I worked really hard for? Why do only authors must care about public benefits?
So what? Why should the state grant you a monopoly at all? The reason is to encourage people to create useful writings and make useful discoveries. But we need to balance this encouragement with the benefit we get by making these writings and discoveries available to everyone. By granting a time-bound monopoly the state rewards creators, and by ensuring this time period is not excessive, spreads the benefit among the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There is not a shortage of books in print. I don't understand why people get so hung up on a few of them being out of print. Because the point isn't so much in reading whatever text as if all text is the same. The point is the spreading of knowledge. A single book can contain knowledge not present in any other. > But I don't see how that desire results in the laws needing to be changed so that you can read everythi…
Which books are in copyright, not being published, and contain unique valuable knowledge? I've never seen this be the case. It's always some genre fiction or obsolete botanical text or something. I've never seen valuable knowledge locked away like you are describing.
In my own field (at the intersection of linguistics, history and archaeology) I am constantly, multiple times per day, referring to information in publications from e.g the 1960s or 1970s that never got republished later except as a brief citation to that old book. And guess what, nearly all that twentieth-century scholarship is still under copyright, often from the big German or Dutch publishers that enforce their claims fiercely. The academic community has been doing a lot of work to scan our institutional libraries and upload them to the shadow libraries, but this is still all illegal copyright violation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But this must then follow for all forms of works, why just books? Every company whose original creator dies must be converted into a public company within 20 years of founder's death for the public benefit as well if that's the case. If I wrote it, I own the copyright on it, why should I or my future family give away something I worked really hard for? Why do only authors must care about public benefits?
> Every company whose original creator dies must be converted into a public company within 20 years of founder's death if public company means employee owned (instead of publicly traded or state owned) then im all for it. if the founders family are good managers they can easily convince their workers to let them keep running things. you dont deserve a job or a fortune just because your parents did a lot of hard work…
And no, I mean every trade secret of the company should become public and anyone should be able to create its products and brands. Basically, do to them what you propose to do to writers and artists - why must their families benefit from their work?