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

81–90 of 207 posts

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

#81

Post by text0404 »

falcor84 wrote: post #61
jnovek wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 y…

> Knitters and crocheters who create patterns? Wow, is that a thing? If you're willing to share, I'd love to hear more about these vocations and how they make money.

People who are well-versed in fields like fashion will create original designs which include yarn requirements, needle size, measurements, stitch instructions, construction steps, etc etc and sell them in online marketplaces like Etsy or Revelry.

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

#82

Post by CivBase »

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 believe copyright timeframes have gotten WAY out of hand and need to be reigned in to something more sensible, but I still think it's a valuable concept and don't want to see it abolished.

Patents on the other hand have become a total joke and I'd be happy to see them gone.

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

#83

Post by triceratops »

Angostura wrote: post #62
falcor84 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Big studios will love this They’ll come across some talented little band playing some nice new tune in a tiny club, record it on their phone and give it to one of the existing boy-bands to play. No need to sign up aspiring artists any more - just take their songs. Of course it’s the boy band that will sell the merch and the concert tickets.

They can already do that. It's called a mechanical cover license.

In fact if all of copyright operated with mechanical licenses it would be a much better system.

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

#84

Post by 1297-1296 »

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 am fully supporting the idea of abolishing property rights for web services. Any web service must publish its entire stack, data, collected information and so on.

This would lead to explosive innovation and the pie would be growing rapidly. #growth-mindset #disruption

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

#85

Post by bluGill »

fny wrote: post #80

Under the current state of affairs, copyleft material can be laundered through LLMs without triggering proprietary weights from becoming open. Something feels broken.

You could always do that with copyright programs. The only thing that changed was the cost. The only example of somebody doing this was with the BIOS of the original IBM PC, but it was always possible and since nothing was copied it is legal. Somebody else did all the hard work.

Patents are the only protection that should exist for this type of thing. (though finding an algorithm worth patenting is hard - most are either a small variation easy to work around, or so old that prior art exists from 50 years ago).

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

#86

Post by bluGill »

gwbas1c wrote: post #12

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.

You might be right, but I think we need at least 10 years before we can really start this discussion, and the discussion itself needs to take many more years.

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

#87

Post by 4thguy »

bluefirebrand wrote: post #70
falcor84 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Knitters and crocheters who create patterns? Wow, is that a thing? If you're willing to share, I'd love to hear more about these vocations and how they make money.

What does making money have to do with creating art? Do you only care about professional artists or something? Amateur artists deserve legal protection for their artwork too :/

That person clearly doesn't know any people who make art.

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

#88

Post by armchairhacker »

dageshi wrote: post #75
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…

Author: I spent six months writing this story, I hope I can make some money selling it, it would be my dream to be able to keep doing this full time. You: I will steal this, consume it, reprint it as I see fit and you will earn nothing. Yeah... I don't think your opinions are worth much.

What % of new authors today make full-time salary on writing?

And what % of those do by selling, vs giving away their work for free (to get non-negligible attention) then getting their real money through donations, merch, etc.?

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

#89

Post by bogwog »

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.

Copyright has nothing to do with cost of production. What does it cost for me to doodle something on a napkin? Nothing, yet I still enjoy the full protections copyright law offers for that doodle (with the exception today being AI companies. Apparently, they can do whatever the fuck they want with it)

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

#90

Post by beej71 »

Ekaros wrote: post #57
beej71 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I see setting such pricing to be an impossible task. What should be the fee for me sharing the computed word count of a book, an uncopyrightable figure? We'd likely agree that a large payment should not be required in that case. And now we have to somehow legally define all these shades of gray, statistics, book summaries—a mess.
Post reply on HN