EFF to Courts: Don't Rewrite Copyright over AI Hype • Hacker News Board

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

#51

Post by swed420 » Tue, Sep 01, 2026, 1:58 PM UTC

HWR_14 wrote: post #31

swed420 wrote: post #21

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. 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.

I sense sarcasm, but anybody serious about fixing corporate social media should read this:

https://www.noemamag.com/the-last-days-of-social-media/

I guess my idea would easily fit into what that article proposes for a solution.

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

#52

Post by Aerroon » Tue, Sep 01, 2026, 1:58 PM UTC

criddell wrote: post #22

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.

Maybe the strategy is to try to build up some steam behind the abolish copyright movement to move the Overton window a bit. If IP owners see actual support behind abolishing copyright, maybe rolling back to min(30, life of author) years of protection would seem like a more reasonable compromise.

I thought that was always the point. A world without any copyright at all obviously doesn't function.

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

#53

Post by andsoitis » Tue, Sep 01, 2026, 1:58 PM UTC

falcor84 wrote: post #40

andsoitis wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> people had original ideas before the invention of copyright 300 years ago

Not in dispute but that's also not the point being argued.

The argument is:

a) whether copyright kills original ideas. I don't think it does but would love to understand what the mechanism is if you think otherwise.

b) whether removing copyright would lead to more "milking of same old topics" in movies. I think the answer is self-evidently yes.

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

#54

Post by jnovek » Tue, Sep 01, 2026, 1:58 PM UTC

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.

It seems like you really only know about how the affects people who make music and TV.

What about illustrators who license their work? Knitters and crocheters who create patterns? There are countless people who sell creative output on a license-basis which would no longer exist in a world without copyright.

Already people who make visual art are demotivated by AI, follow literally any visual artist on Instagram and you’ll see this. Taking away copyright would make that look tiny in comparison.

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

#55

Post by bpodgursky » Tue, Sep 01, 2026, 1:59 PM UTC

msabalau wrote: post #20

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 sh…

Why are you being argumentative? "Promote" and "exclusive rights" was always about compensation for the time and effort invested. You just rephrased what the OP said while claiming to disagree.

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

#56

Post by preisschild » Tue, Sep 01, 2026, 1:59 PM UTC

tancop wrote: post #47

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'…

And what if that actually leads to less open-ness? If I license code under a copyleft license, users are forced to give back their changes to the public. Without copyright they would not be forced to do this, which means less work will be published.

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

#57

Post by Ekaros » Tue, Sep 01, 2026, 1:59 PM UTC

beej71 wrote: post #45

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.

My biggest contention is the acquiring price for such use. I hold that for such use the cost such be significantly higher than just if you were buying book for reading.

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

#58

Post by simonw » Tue, Sep 01, 2026, 2:01 PM UTC

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…

How do you make a feature film - budget ranging from low millions to hundreds of millions of dollars - if anyone can copy it and view it without paying for it?

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

#59

Post by jnovek » Tue, Sep 01, 2026, 2:01 PM UTC

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…

It’s not Taylor Swift who is hurt by this, it’s the solo creatives who cannot afford other mechanisms (e.g. trademark enforcement) to protect their work.

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

#60

Post by andsoitis » Tue, Sep 01, 2026, 2:05 PM UTC

falcor84 wrote: post #38

cestith wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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.

This suggests that copyright isn't holding back these works...