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

EFF to Courts: Don't Rewrite Copyright over AI Hype

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 206 posts

Re: EFF to Courts: Don't Rewrite Copyright over AI Hype

#11

Post by mchusma »

noja wrote: post #9
anonyfox wrote: post #7

Independend of AI I am fully supporting the idea to abolish copyright in general, full stop. Allowing cheap duplication and tweaking is what leads to fast innovation and culture changes. Explicit (costly) patents can remain in place to secure industrial-grade research processes, but the general everyday stuff, incluing music and literature and code and so on is something to strip default rights away to allow faster p…

> Explicit (costly) patents can remain in place to secure industrial-grade research processes I keep reading about big companies i) developing very similar drugs that are different enough to avoid patents, ii) using their size to prevent litigation. So would keeping patents help?

The government could always pay for results too, like $10B for something that does this. I don’t love it either and am not positive it is better than patents.

Re: EFF to Courts: Don't Rewrite Copyright over AI Hype

#12

Post by gwbas1c »

I think we need to adjust copyright to balance market needs and preservation needs. AI works best when we can strike a balance between the needs of the creator to get compensated and the need of the general public to use content in ways the creator didn't anticipate.

Re: EFF to Courts: Don't Rewrite Copyright over AI Hype

#13

Post by kelvinjps10 »

anonyfox wrote: post #7

Independend of AI I am fully supporting the idea to abolish copyright in general, full stop. Allowing cheap duplication and tweaking is what leads to fast innovation and culture changes. Explicit (costly) patents can remain in place to secure industrial-grade research processes, but the general everyday stuff, incluing music and literature and code and so on is something to strip default rights away to allow faster p…

if copyrigth is abolished. amazon would publish every single boon without giving a cent to writers. it would be reqlly hard for writers to make a living. Im not a fan of copyrigth and how is being used at the moment but I don't really see an alternative where writers still get paid.

Re: EFF to Courts: Don't Rewrite Copyright over AI Hype

#14

Post by inglor_cz »

andsoitis wrote: post #8
anonyfox wrote: post #7

Independend of AI I am fully supporting the idea to abolish copyright in general, full stop. Allowing cheap duplication and tweaking is what leads to fast innovation and culture changes. Explicit (costly) patents can remain in place to secure industrial-grade research processes, but the general everyday stuff, incluing music and literature and code and so on is something to strip default rights away to allow faster p…

> fast innovation and culture changes Does this mean you think innovation and change in our culture is too slow? What’s you’re yardstick?

Hmm. Looking at the cinemas, almost all the top movies are prequels or sequels, milking the same topic for the tenth time.

I'd say that at least the movie industry is somehow stuck in a rut.

Re: EFF to Courts: Don't Rewrite Copyright over AI Hype

#15

Post by AlexandrB »

Copyright in general, is too long, too broad, and - thanks largely to DMCA - enforced too strictly. One reason for China's success in tech is their willingness to ignore all the IP nonsense (or at least look the other way) allowing folks to rapidly iterate on ideas without running into IP rent-seekers at every turn.

Re: EFF to Courts: Don't Rewrite Copyright over AI Hype

#16

Post by dtech »

noja wrote: post #9
anonyfox wrote: post #7

Independend of AI I am fully supporting the idea to abolish copyright in general, full stop. Allowing cheap duplication and tweaking is what leads to fast innovation and culture changes. Explicit (costly) patents can remain in place to secure industrial-grade research processes, but the general everyday stuff, incluing music and literature and code and so on is something to strip default rights away to allow faster p…

> Explicit (costly) patents can remain in place to secure industrial-grade research processes I keep reading about big companies i) developing very similar drugs that are different enough to avoid patents, ii) using their size to prevent litigation. So would keeping patents help?

The "me too" drug still need to go through an R&D, clinical trail and approval process, so combined with patents the exclusivity period is at least several years. Abolishing patents would completely remove the exclusivity period

Re: EFF to Courts: Don't Rewrite Copyright over AI Hype

#17

Post by simonuv »

anonyfox wrote: post #7

Independend of AI I am fully supporting the idea to abolish copyright in general, full stop. Allowing cheap duplication and tweaking is what leads to fast innovation and culture changes. Explicit (costly) patents can remain in place to secure industrial-grade research processes, but the general everyday stuff, incluing music and literature and code and so on is something to strip default rights away to allow faster p…

[dead]

Re: EFF to Courts: Don't Rewrite Copyright over AI Hype

#18

Post by zer00eyz »

anonyfox wrote: post #7

Independend of AI I am fully supporting the idea to abolish copyright in general, full stop. Allowing cheap duplication and tweaking is what leads to fast innovation and culture changes. Explicit (costly) patents can remain in place to secure industrial-grade research processes, but the general everyday stuff, incluing music and literature and code and so on is something to strip default rights away to allow faster p…

Go back to the old 28 year system. Dump the renewal.

This would align it with the patent system.

> what leads to fast innovation

Content becomes cultural artifacts - the whole birthday song copyright issue should have told Americans how broken the system was.

Re: EFF to Courts: Don't Rewrite Copyright over AI Hype

#19

Post by Roark66 »

I recently heard a local EU politician on the radio trying to convince the listeners "things made with AI should be inherently non copyrightable, because they lack human creative labour".

I wish I could tell him there is this thing called photography where all a human does is presses a button and copyrightable artefacts are created by capturing how the world looks. For example a landscape that human had no influence over creating!

Surely this "non copyrightability" should apply to photography too.

/sarcasm

AI is just a tool. You can make slop or you can make beautiful art. Is it fair to Picasso's copyright holder that all his paintings were used for training and you can prompt "this in style of Picasso"?

No, especially if the company that trained the LLM makes money on it.

But there is a technical solution. Simply during training record who owns what training data and record how much influence on each weight this training run had.

Then during inference it could be recorded if the weights that trained on Picasso's stuff activated or not. And if someone pays for inference the original owner of tgat data should get a cut.

Maybe even blockchain tech could be used for this... Imagine the hype! AI and crypto together!

Re: EFF to Courts: Don't Rewrite Copyright over AI Hype

#20

Post by msabalau »

boxed wrote: post #3

There might need to be some calibration. The reason for copyright is (ostensibly) to compensate for the enormous cost of production. If the cost goes down, the protection should also logically go down.

The purpose of copyright under the US Constitution, a text relevant to the courts the EFF is addressing here, is to "promote the progress of science and useful arts by giving creators temporary exclusive rights to their works"

It is not to "compensate for the cost of production", nor is it to ensure that business plans of major music publishers happen to be successful.

The EFF is correct to say here that copyright shouldn't be perverted to limiting market competition generally, but limited to protecting a specific works.

Post reply on HN