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

41–50 of 207 posts

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

#41

Post by Ekaros »

cestith wrote: post #30
zer00eyz wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'd say shorter but with renewals. Say, 15 years with two or three renewals of equal length, but require that the original protected work is still for sale to get the renewal. This would clear up things like retro games being stuck in limbo or small press books being impossible to buy. It would still allow rights holders to make their exclusive money if they are actually making money on the original. It wouldn't allo…

I am against renewals. It is just additional layer of complication. Having to look up and track possibly poorly informed state of work is unnecessary extra step.

Straight up x years from identified release year of edition you have on hand is most reasonable.

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

#42

Post by paulddraper »

inglor_cz wrote: post #14
andsoitis wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Getting rid of copyright is going to make that problem worse not better...

I'm wondering if you are reasoning correctly about this.

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

#44

Post by Aurornis »

falcor84 wrote: post #36
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?

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.

Copyright covers a lot more than the long tail of indie music bands who stream a few thousand plays on Spotify.

This thread has a lot of arguments based entirely on beliefs about small bands and streaming services. Music is only a small part of copyright law.

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

#45

Post by beej71 »

Ekaros wrote: post #24

I consider current length of copyright to be extremely too long. On other hand I also think that creators should be compensated when their creations are used to train AI models and this compensation should be substantial per company. And to any fallacious person telling about humans also "learning". Well humans brains are not replicated en masse just yet. And single learned person is not made to millions of copies an…

I disagree with restrictions on digestive use of a work. If I legally acquire a book, I should be able to run that data through an algorithm, and I should be allowed to share the result freely as long as it's not replicating the original.

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

#46

Post by JoshTriplett »

bigfishrunning wrote: post #37
anonyfox wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That's a trademark issue, not a copyright issue.

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

#47

Post by tancop »

We need to limit copyright to commercial use. Piracy only hurts corporate profits (CDPR proved it will never bankrupt a studio) but a media company getting an artist to work for them and not paying is seriously unfair.

This kind of breaks down with independent artists but any economic loss for them would be way less important than the benefits of a system where all culture is shared and open for modification. We can't put the interests of a small group over everyone else if the members of that group choose to be in it.

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

#48

Post by preisschild »

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…

This would also mean copyleft would not work anymore. Companies would not be forced to release the source code of their modifications of (A)GPL software.

I think that would be a great loss

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

#49

Post by mchusma »

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…

I’m just not convinced that most artists would change their behavior under no copyright, so somewhat agree. But the main issue is length of time.

The fact that copyright is longer than patents makes no sense. Patents prove that a shorter period is sufficient to stimulate large investment. And you have to pay for patents!

If you assume reasonable discount rates, the economic value plummets over time for an asset producing the same income (a bad assumption for copyright work in general).

At an 8% discount rate, extending copyright from 32 years to infinity adds less than 10% to its total present-day value. There are many good reform proposals, but mine would be something like 15ish years of free copyright, followed by 1 paid renewal for 15 years that is modest in price (eg $1000) and one extra 10 year renewal that is something like $1M. Meaning you have most economically neutral work free up at year 15, small business types having it affordable through 30 years, and the big Hollywood productions can go from 30-40 years for a modest (to them) fee to incentivize investments in expensive works. Movies come to mind. Give existing work a 20 year buffer on top of that to transition and there is a very small economic effect on everyone.

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

#50

Post by duped »

falcor84 wrote: post #36
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?

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.

There are more kinds of art than just music.
Post reply on HN