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

171–180 of 208 posts

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

#171

Post by cestith »

jonhohle wrote: post #158
antasvara wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Some cinemas do present some sporting events. The rights negotiations for sporting events are multi-layered and complex. Your average soccer or MLB game is not likely to be negotiated for that venue, and a whole-season license is unlikely. Playoffs, championships, and the like are sometimes worthwhile but it's not going to be the corner mom & pop cinemas paying for that content. It's going to be IMAX or Regal Cinemas or someone huge.

For example the 2024 Summer Olympics, with NBC owning exclusive rights to the US market for video coverage (meaning NBC Universal, meaning Comcast) IMAX licensed the opening ceremony to be picked up from NBC and delivered to their US cinemas over IP with fixed latency. It was only the opening ceremony and no scored events. That involved NBC, IMAX, and LTN to carry the video in between. IMAX and NBC negotiated the rights and LTN got statements of agreement on that from NBC. There was involved planning and engineering work to make sure the technical part went smoothly. I'm sure the negotiations, contract writing, redlines, and final sign-off between the source and destination took longer than the tech work.

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

#172

Post by saaaaaam »

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.

Yes they do. As a kid our (admittedly not particularly lavish) family summer holiday was paid for each year by the modest royalties my father, an academic, received from a couple of academic textbooks he had authored.

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

#173

Post by saaaaaam »

Huarache1 wrote: post #161
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.

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…

What do you mean by “considering how much we take from the public domain”?

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

#174

Post by UtopiaPunk »

armchairhacker wrote: post #154
Aurornis wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The artist still owns their right to distribute their videos. If someone copies their videos and uploads them to a place with no ads or no patreon subscription that eats into the profit the creator of the art could be making, because someone else is essentially giving it away for free. Only the artist has the right to copy their art.

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

#175

Post by Caracas288 »

saaaaaam wrote: post #172
Caracas288 wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Yes they do. As a kid our (admittedly not particularly lavish) family summer holiday was paid for each year by the modest royalties my father, an academic, received from a couple of academic textbooks he had authored.

Right, that was worded too universally, but this is what I mean: royalties here are supplementary to a salary, not a wage in themselves. The research was funded before publication.

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

#176

Post by jolmg »

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.

I'm using "research" broadly. People can privately research and publish under whatever arrangement they wish. Academics too. For those that sell their copyright, that would be valued based on projections of what the copyright buyer expects to sell. For those whose research was funded by the copyright buyer prior to writing because they didn't want to bear the risk or lacked the funds, that's going to be less, but everything stems from how the books are expected to sell.

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

#177

Post by jolmg »

Caracas288 wrote: post #166
Huarache1 wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not sure if you really mean it, but you're kind of making the argument that a person that mindlessly shovels dirt from one hole to another in a circle should be paid. People are paid for the result, not for their labor.

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

#178

Post by UtopiaPunk »

Copyright is broken and needs major reform, but copyright must exist in some form as long as we are operating under the current economic system. If we want a society where some people have the job of creating art, then they must be compensated for their art. The leverage that artists have to demand compensation is controlling who access to their art. Said another way, the artist owns the right to make copies of their art. That is protected by law.

I think copyright as it exists is abused by large companies and stifles culture. Broadly speaking, I think copyright should be a much shorter term, lasting more like 20 years rather than the 100+ years that is typical (life of the author + 70 years). The exact term is debateable, but the purpose should be to allow the artist sufficient time to monetize their creation for themselves, and then allowing the art to belong to the broader culture. There should be a worthwhile financial incentive to create art.

My utopian dream would be a radically restructured society where we do not expect people to have "artist" as a career. Instead, people would work 15 hours a week doing the work that must be done to contributue to society. The compensation from that 15 hours of work guarantees all their needs to live in modest comfort. People then have more leisure time to pursue whatever they find self-actualizing, which for many will mean creating art and sharing it with the world.

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

#179

Post by LtWorf »

teeray wrote: post #106

I think the asymmetry of fair use is what feels the most wrong about copyright and AI. Forever, fair use has been limited with an iron fist: you can’t rip that DVD because it’s copy-protected; You can only use 10s of that song in your school project. Then these AI companies wield fair use like a sledgehammer in a way that nobody has been able to for decades to enormously profit. Maybe it’s technically correct, but it…

I'm aware that my GPL3 licensed software has been rewritten using AI to get rid of the GPL license by a large weapons company.

Seems to me the EFF is entirely fine with it?

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

#180

Post by Caracas288 »

jolmg wrote: post #177
Caracas288 wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Not sure if you really mean it, but you're kind of making the argument that a person that mindlessly shovels dirt from one hole to another in a circle should be paid. People are paid for the result, not for their labor.

Not at all. You're presuming that nobody can be taken off this hypothetical salary once they're on it, and that they would be placed on it indiscriminately.

Simple safeguards are already in practice in today's economy to prevent such circumstances.

Post reply on HN