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

161–170 of 207 posts

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

#161

Post by Huarache1 »

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.

Copyright is described by its proponents as a "Monopoly held by the creator". Considering how much we take from the Public Domain, I'd argue that Copyright should only last as long as Patents do, up to a maximum of 20 years.

Anything beyond that is not personal property, but a literal monopoly which impedes creativity, seeing the many, many, many sequels which are terrible often made to keep a studio's grasp on an IP. It happens so often those are often called "ashcan copy" or "rights-retention" films, which wouldn't happen if Copyright law expired as naturally as Patents do.

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

#162

Post by Huarache1 »

jolmg wrote: post #159
Caracas288 wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Neither do Inventors, which arguably make much more contributions to society, yet their work is only protected for 20 years tops.

What excuse do artists have?

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

#163

Post by Caracas288 »

jolmg wrote: post #159
Caracas288 wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Academics don't collect any royalties, they're paid prior to publication, not for selling copies of books.

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

#164

Post by MatekCopatek »

falcor84 wrote: post #149
text0404 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Oh, I'm familiar with that; I thought that the parent meant that there are people who make money directly from the copyright on the patterns rather than the artifacts they sell. Are there?

Is this some kind of trick question or am I just misunderstanding your reply?

As far as I know they sell the patterns, not the finished knitted artifact. Aspiring knitters buy them to enjoy knitting. The physical representation of the pattern isn't worth anything (just a piece of paper), what you're buying is a license to use their intellectual property, so I'd say they're making money from copyright.

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

#165

Post by dropofwill »

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…

> next to none percentage wise gets much royalties anymore

While artists get paid less then many would like, royalties make up roughly 2/3rds of revenue of all the streaming giants, which is a huge amount of money. This recurring monthly, mostly passive income is still helpful for smaller professional bands in between touring.

When the indie band Xiu Xiu pulled out of Spotify many were quick to say it didn't matter that much except for exposure, but in interviews they pointed out that they lost a significant portion of they're yearly income from doing it just from the streaming royalties.

Many will say touring is where the real money is, but costs are rising and what I've heard its not as lucrative for smaller bands as it was in the past.

Some links: Spotify's own report on payouts, obviously a biased editorial, but good data nonetheless (for example 13K artists made 100k/year from spotify royalties alone) https://loudandclear.byspotify.com/payouts/

A transparent report on tour costs from a fairly popular indie band (notably they could make more if they were less principled or were a smaller band, but I think this report is still eye opening in terms of general costs) https://stereogum.com/2497822/los-campesinos-break-down-what...

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

#166

Post by Caracas288 »

Huarache1 wrote: post #162
jolmg wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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.

Neither do Inventors, which arguably make much more contributions to society, yet their work is only protected for 20 years tops. What excuse do artists have?

As with academics, inventors and artists should be paid for their labour long-term, not for their result.

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

#167

Post by LtWorf »

boxed wrote: post #76
LtWorf wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The cost of producing decent things hasn't gone down. Also the cost of slop is not that low, just subsidised.

I'm a programmer by trade. I know you're wrong from much personal experience, and the difference between last year and today is dramatic. If you believe the anti-AI people you will become misinformed, just as much as if you listen to the most pro-AI people.

> I'm a programmer by trade.

Me too. I don't understand what makes you think your opinion is superior to all the evidence I've seen so far.

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

#168

Post by cestith »

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.

Do you mean production or reproduction? For instance, have you ever looked and the budget or the credits for a major film, TV, or game project?

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

#169

Post by [deleted] »

Caracas288 wrote: post #163
jolmg wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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.

Academics don't collect any royalties, they're paid prior to publication, not for selling copies of books.

[deleted]

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

#170

Post by saaaaaam »

falcor84 wrote: post #149
text0404 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Oh, I'm familiar with that; I thought that the parent meant that there are people who make money directly from the copyright on the patterns rather than the artifacts they sell. Are there?

Yes, that’s correct. There are people who make money directly from the copyright on the patterns. The parent commenter means that the people referenced are selling the patterns, not the garments.
Post reply on HN