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

31–40 of 208 posts

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

#31

Post by HWR_14 »

swed420 wrote: post #21
kelvinjps10 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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. How about a unified social platform that allows people to donate to the authors/artists/creators/projects of their choosing? It could allow feedback similar to goodreads, and also be more longterm focused than the traditional kickstarter, etc. The social aspect wo…

We could do that with all kinds of IP! Use a feature in software or in a Meta app, just donate to the minimum amount wage (for legal reasons) workers who developed it. And Meta and Google themselves could be forbidden to show ads, just rely on donations as well.

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

#32

Post by anonyfox »

Aurornis wrote: post #26
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…

> and oh the poor artists: next to none percentage wise gets much royalties anymore, streaming income is close to zero usually even if popular Your argument is that artists aren’t paid enough, so we should go ahead and take it all the way to zero by law?

artists sell live experiences and original merchandise to actually make money these days. only a rare subset of megastars are living off royalties to begin with, and I am totally fine if some tailor swift has less millions to begin with.

people support/pay real artists if they want more of it, else there is no way I see a right to get paid a wage for just being an artist in itself. if youre not original enough so you get copycats in a day well thats also a signal of artistic value. you cannot separate art from the artist, even if some people are okay with knockoffs after all. there is a difference between art and just content production, the latter is already worthless today with AI speedrunning the decline for mass producing mediocre slop people think is good enough.

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

#33

Post by noosphr »

Aurornis wrote: post #26
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…

> and oh the poor artists: next to none percentage wise gets much royalties anymore, streaming income is close to zero usually even if popular Your argument is that artists aren’t paid enough, so we should go ahead and take it all the way to zero by law?

It's already an epsilon away from zero.

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

#34

Post by [deleted] »

kelvinjps10 wrote: post #13
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.

[deleted]

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

#35

Post by bobajeff »

kelvinjps10 wrote: post #13
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.

Is it not hard for writers to make a living? If so maybe I should do that.

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

#36

Post by falcor84 »

Aurornis wrote: post #26
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…

> and oh the poor artists: next to none percentage wise gets much royalties anymore, streaming income is close to zero usually even if popular Your argument is that artists aren’t paid enough, so we should go ahead and take it all the way to zero by law?

I'm not an artist and might be entirely wrong, but my understanding is that for 99% of artists, over 99% of their revenue is from concerts tickets, merch and other physical products, rather than digital/broadcast plays, so changing this to zero wouldn't really affect them, but would act to reduce the power of the labels and other intermediaries over them.

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

#37

Post by bigfishrunning »

anonyfox wrote: post #32
Aurornis wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and oh the poor artists: next to none percentage wise gets much royalties anymore, streaming income is close to zero usually even if popular Your argument is that artists aren’t paid enough, so we should go ahead and take it all the way to zero by law?

artists sell live experiences and original merchandise to actually make money these days. only a rare subset of megastars are living off royalties to begin with, and I am totally fine if some tailor swift has less millions to begin with. people support/pay real artists if they want more of it, else there is no way I see a right to get paid a wage for just being an artist in itself. if youre not original enough so you…

So you'll reduce that to just live experiences: abolish copyright, and watch 1 million bootleg Taylor Swift T-shirts suddenly blink into existence

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

#38

Post by falcor84 »

cestith wrote: post #25
inglor_cz wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you get rid of copyright, half of movies will be sequels to other people's work from the previous year.

From my perspective from reading and watching fan fiction, these unofficial derived works are typically significantly more distinct and interesting than the official sequels, and I'd be cool with these getting bigger budgets.

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

#39

Post by jonhohle »

cestith wrote: post #25
inglor_cz wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you get rid of copyright, half of movies will be sequels to other people's work from the previous year.

There would be no movies as we know them today. Studios couldn’t support making multi-hundred million dollar movies that are immediately free to everyone. Basically movies would become YouTube.

It could potentially help theater owners, who provide a somewhat unique experience. That doesn’t seem very valued these days, though.

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

#40

Post by falcor84 »

andsoitis wrote: post #23
inglor_cz wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Wouldn’t removing copyright just lead to more “milking the same topic”? I don’t see how it would lead to a higher volume of original ideas.

I can assure you that people had original ideas before the invention of copyright 300 years ago.
Post reply on HN