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

111–120 of 207 posts

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

#111

Post by armchairhacker »

myrmidon wrote: post #103
armchairhacker wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.?

The more successful "self published" authors writing web novels make significant money from patreon (>$20k/month); this relies on copyright protection (but interestingly, just a few months would be sufficient for that business model).

My understanding is that most of these web novels are free, and patreon grants early access at best, which is enforced by trust anyways (the creator doesn’t have the time or resources to track and sue someone posting the early access on a pirate site, when it will be public a week or month later, but the people who pay to get something a week or month early mostly aren’t the type who would pirate even if it was easy).

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

#112

Post by wizzwizz4 »

myrmidon wrote: post #103
armchairhacker wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.?

The more successful "self published" authors writing web novels make significant money from patreon (>$20k/month); this relies on copyright protection (but interestingly, just a few months would be sufficient for that business model).

In what way does that business model rely on copyright protection? "Get the next chapter early" requires a source of chapters, so all you need is for paying clients to not be motivated to redistribute the chapters in an organised way, or would-be paying clients to not be motivated to use such organised "slightly more chapters of that webnovel you follow" services instead. Humans aren't amoral ideal rational economic actors.

The authors I'm aware of making >$20k don't do any significant gating. That practice is only really common with people republishing through Amazon (which probably demands it).

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

#113

Post by fjfkkskdngnf »

CivBase wrote: post #82
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.

As it is now, it’s a joke. Essentially new laws are continuously introduced to make disney’s junk forever inaccessible. No author, no animator, no one except disney share holders wants these shit laws.

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

#115

Post by rpdillon »

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.

The part this analysis misses is that the author's "dream" of doing that full time is almost never realized -- 25% percent of authors identify as "full-time", but only 10% of those authors can actually make ends meet. Only 30% of books ever pay back the advance. The best shot is to be a "romance" author, which earns more than other genres, pretty much because sex sells. Copyright isn't doing a great job at its stated purpose, and yet we endure endless fights over it. The juice isn't worth the squeeze, and writers are mostly supporting themselves with other jobs anyway.

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

#116

Post by inglor_cz »

andsoitis wrote: post #60
falcor84 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

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

IF the copyright holders are kind enough not to harass those fans for infringement. And this kindness is quite commonplace in some contexts (people writing stories about their favorite literary characters rarely get cease-and-desisted), but much less in others ("fanfic" movies about Mickey Mouse are a no-go even for free).

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

#118

Post by armchairhacker »

dageshi wrote: post #100
armchairhacker wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.?

What does it matter? I don't think anyone has the right to take work I create, for free. In the same way I have no right to walk into your house and use it for free. In the same way you cannot expect me to turn up and work at your business for free. I don't care what half delusional rubbish you come up with to justify your theft. It's theft, you want to steal something you put zero effort into creating and use it as…

It matters because copyright is widely abused and hurts neutral sites which must constantly check for copyrighted content, and it would’ve hampered AI if it was enforced.

Your analogy doesn’t fit because a house is physical, but “intellectual property” is digital. If we lived in the metaverse and I could just copy your house and live in it without affecting you, why should you care? Theft is bad because the victim no longer has the original.

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

#119

Post by rpdillon »

mistrial9 wrote: post #99
dageshi wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

many people commenting have never tried to earn a living from independently created works of authorship. The NAPSTER-fans say "more for me, what is your problem". Other economies (China) do not have commerce law that protects original works of authorship, but the Western tradition has enabled this. Blinded by corporate abuse, calls for removal of copyright law are often naive or ill-willed IMHO

Just treat copyright as an engineering issue, rather than a religion. Is copyright doing more good than harm when it comes to encouraging creativity? I think everything tilted in favor of abolishing copyright around the turn of the century, and AI isn't improving things.

Your point about making a living off of creative endeavors underscores this point: if copyright were doing its job the way it's supposed to, your first sentence wouldn't be a note alluding to how damn hard it is to make a living on writing. Somehow you're twisting that to be a feature, which I get, because there's no alternative story, but at the same time, let's be honest: copyright doesn't work well, and incurs huge costs for society.

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

#120

Post by clickety_clack »

rpdillon wrote: post #115
dageshi wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The part this analysis misses is that the author's "dream" of doing that full time is almost never realized -- 25% percent of authors identify as "full-time", but only 10% of those authors can actually make ends meet. Only 30% of books ever pay back the advance. The best shot is to be a "romance" author, which earns more than other genres, pretty much because sex sells. Copyright isn't doing a great job at its stated…

Novels aren't the only thing with copyright, and aren't really even the main thing that copyright protects. It also covers engineering reports, technical specs, journalism, blog posts, emails, internal memos, marketing copy, academic papers, user manuals, legal briefs, and a lot more.

Even in the particular case of novels, I would prefer to live in a world where some authors are making money than live in one with no novels at all.

Post reply on HN