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

151–160 of 207 posts

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

#151

Post by myrmidon »

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #112
myrmidon wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> so all you need is for paying clients to not be motivated to redistribute the chapters in an organised way

This is exactly what copyright is.

I agree that you could work around this in a world without copyright (e.g. by watermarking content and blacklisting), but it would be difficult and make the whole profession less viable.

Mass distribution and payment becoming accessible/low overhead was an extremely helpful development for authors in my view, and removing copyright would have the opposite effect (but cutting it down even to several years would change surprisingly little).

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

#152

Post by overfeed »

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…

> writers are mostly supporting themselves with other jobs anyway.

Skill issue. This is common for low-barrier careers that look like anyone can do them, but only a minority break-even. Others include porn/Onlyfans, social media "influencers",and hordes of aspiring actors who flock to Los Angeles.

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

#153

Post by Caracas288 »

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.

Authors and artists are not (and souldn't be) making Art for money. It is not a 'job' where effort goes in and product comes out. It's more like a religious calling, they often have no other option. That's true, but it's also the reason people are paid less than their technical peers.

It is difficult in the current climate to prevent industrial actors from cultivating genetic lines instantiated by Artists in Art. In a different future, the seperation between small and large-scale genetic agriculture would be recognised, and the abolition of copyright may proceed.

In a world where money is devalued, genetic lines and mental constituency will become even more powerful.

See: the mental constituency of sci-fi books in E. Musk's brain

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

#154

Post by armchairhacker »

Aurornis wrote: post #144
armchairhacker wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have the same understanding regarding YouTubers and writers. There’s so much competition nowadays, almost no indie can achieve nearly enough sales for a living wage. And ironically, the best way to get more attention is to make your product free, hence more and more artists doing free + paid merch.

Going full time on YouTube as a primary and only job is unlikely to work out. The YouTube income for most small creators get folded back into the channel. Getting a $100 check from YouTube isn’t going to pay your rent, but it makes purchasing some better lighting or a new microphone for the channel an easy choice, which in turn helps them grow and enjoy their hobby channel more. The argument that the dollar amount is…

It wouldn’t be $0, because creators make money without selling their work: Patreon, commissions, even ads/sponsorships (though not ideal). Most creators I know, all their main work is already free.

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

#155

Post by inglor_cz »

andsoitis wrote: post #141
inglor_cz wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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).

As an aside, I don’t know that fan fiction is the strongest case for originality!

Fanfic is subject to the Gauss curve like everything else.

The Lord of the Rings is sorta-kinda fanfic to Beowulf, the Witcher is fanfic to Slavic and Celtic mythology. Neither of these two authors started as "big published renowned authors", they were both amateurs smitten by some earlier works.

And yes, I realize again that in those particular examples, the original work was no longer protected. But that is irrelevant to the question of the derived work's quality.

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

#156

Post by naasking »

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.

> amazon would publish every single boon without giving a cent to writers. it would be reqlly hard for writers to make a living.

Not quite, Amazon would just become the publisher that buys new books/articles/whatever directly from the writers, one upfront fee. Not saying it's a sustainable living for writers, just saying that's probably what would happen.

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

#157

Post by dageshi »

armchairhacker wrote: post #150
dageshi wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Theft in this case is bad because you're removing the ability of someone to make a living from the thing they created. On the basis it's digital. I don't care if it's digital, I care if it took time and effort to create. If it did, it does not matter if it's digital or physical, it's theft.

Today, practically zero new indies make a living from selling digital copies of a thing they created. That income is eclipsed by giving away their main work, then asking for donations, maybe selling merchandise, early access, tailored commissions, or some other token (and sponsorships but those unfortunately hurt quality). So abolish copyright, and indies still make money from creating digital works - at least almost…

I regularly see posts on reddit r/royalroad where people write amateur stories and have their works stolen and put up on other platforms for money.

https://www.reddit.com/r/royalroad/comments/1uwyuf1/psa_stol...

Here is an example of the theft you endorse.

Please go tell those people they should be happy for someone else to steal their work and charge for it even after they've given it away for free.

It doesn't matter whether "few" people make a living from it. Copyright does not guarantee you an audience. Copyright going away would not guarantee you more of an audience.

The only thing it guarantees is that if you manage to write something that resonates with an audience you have the potential to earn a living from it. That is what you want to take away.

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

#158

Post by jonhohle »

antasvara wrote: post #63
jonhohle wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

An exclusive theatrical window is one of the big reasons to go to a movie theater: you want to see a movie before it's available on streaming. Removing copyright seems like it would harm theaters pretty significantly.

The screen would become the thing. If anyone can watch anything anywhere at any time, having a 200 foot screen differentiates a theater from watching something on a phone. 99% of the time, people will choose the phone, will choose to watch sports on tv, etc. that remaining 1% might be a big enough market and without licensing fees, theaters have a lot more margin.

Actually, it seems surprising they haven’t moved into sports (especially with sportsbooks becoming so popular).

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

#159

Post by jolmg »

Caracas288 wrote: post #153
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.

Authors and artists are not (and souldn't be) making Art for money. It is not a 'job' where effort goes in and product comes out. It's more like a religious calling, they often have no other option. That's true, but it's also the reason people are paid less than their technical peers. It is difficult in the current climate to prevent industrial actors from cultivating genetic lines instantiated by Artists in Art. In…

>> Author: I spent six months writing this story.

> Authors and artists are not (and souldn't be) making Art for money.

Hmm...

> Author: I spent some years researching a topic to write a book about it.

Authors don't just make art.

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

#160

Post by armchairhacker »

dageshi wrote: post #157
armchairhacker wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Today, practically zero new indies make a living from selling digital copies of a thing they created. That income is eclipsed by giving away their main work, then asking for donations, maybe selling merchandise, early access, tailored commissions, or some other token (and sponsorships but those unfortunately hurt quality). So abolish copyright, and indies still make money from creating digital works - at least almost…

I regularly see posts on reddit r/royalroad where people write amateur stories and have their works stolen and put up on other platforms for money. https://www.reddit.com/r/royalroad/comments/1uwyuf1/psa_stol... Here is an example of the theft you endorse. Please go tell those people they should be happy for someone else to steal their work and charge for it even after they've given it away for free. It doesn't matte…

These only further my point. Everything published on RoyalRoad is already free; the issue the authors face is trademark, not copyright, violation, because their works are republished under a different name. Also, while OP found resolution, most of the other commenters did not, demonstrating that IP laws don’t reliably protect indies anyways.

IMO the solution to protecting trademark is to ensure anyone who discovers a repackaged work (like those examples) also discovers the original author and their free version, so they know it’s a ripoff. It doesn’t require the finicky legal system.

Post reply on HN