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

181–190 of 207 posts

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

#181

Post by Caracas288 »

jolmg wrote: post #176
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.

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 eve…

I think there are better funding models than the precarity of copyright-dependent publishing.

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

#182

Post by armchairhacker »

UtopiaPunk wrote: post #174
armchairhacker wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ad revenue is also subverted by seeing the original video with uBlock, which I think is fair, because I think ads are harmful and unsustainable - like copyright, only a small minority of indie creators get sustainable revenue from ads, and I'd be surprised if the number wasn't decreasing.

Not linking the author's name and patreon is a problem, but I don't think it needs laws and definitely not copyright; if somebody gets the video on the other place to link the original author's patreon, even if they're not who uploaded it, it benefits them and I don't see any serious issue.

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

#183

Post by LtWorf »

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.

Yep. I've seen it happen and there's basically no recourse against it currently. And EFF is saying that it's fine… honestly not what I was expecting to read.

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

#184

Post by LtWorf »

snohobro wrote: post #101

ITT: Tell me you don’t have anything worth copyrighting without telling me you don’t have anything worth copyrighting. I worry about some of y’all. After reading the article, I don’t disagree with the EFF. We shouldn’t rewrite copyright law to ban creative generation of {art}. AI generated images only increases competition, which is good for consumers of {art}. I do agree that copyright should still exist to prevent…

> it might actually be even easier for small timers to protect their stuff

It's easier to not get my stuff stolen if we add superthieves on cocaine?

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

#185

Post by blks »

mchusma wrote: post #49
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’m just not convinced that most artists would change their behavior under no copyright, so somewhat agree. But the main issue is length of time. The fact that copyright is longer than patents makes no sense. Patents prove that a shorter period is sufficient to stimulate large investment. And you have to pay for patents! If you assume reasonable discount rates, the economic value plummets over time for an asset produ…

Removing copyright will benefit parasites and big players more than small artists and businesses. Big businesses won’t have to eg obtain any licensing to publish someone else’s novel or technical book.

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

#186

Post by jnovek »

armchairhacker wrote: post #98
jnovek wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not Taylor Swift who is hurt by this, it’s the solo creatives who cannot afford other mechanisms (e.g. trademark enforcement) to protect their work.

Trademark != copyright: trademark is attributing indies whenever their work appears (which is very doable), copyright is preventing others from seeing or reshowing their work (even with attribution). Copyright is about protecting their sales, which are practically nonexistent, hence (because it has big downsides) why it should be abolished.

You have to explicitly legally defend trademark, that's completely our of reach for someone who sells knitting patterns on Etsy. OTOH, DMCA can (and does) work for that group.

I also dislike US IP law but I think it needs to be improved with nuance. What you propose is survivable for big IP owners but would wipe out swaths of small business owners.

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

#187

Post by eviks »

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…

What progress do you expect in music that would justify throwing poor musicians under the bus (the fact that they get a small portion of IP revenue doesn't explain why that portion should become even smaller)?

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

#188

Post by falcor84 »

MatekCopatek wrote: post #164
falcor84 wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sorry, yes, I genuinely took a long time to understand, and this then took me on quite the rabbit hole, thanks, to you and the others on the thread.

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

#189

Post by tzs »

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…

Wait...your theory is that if we make it so I can copy and tweak any work of authorship I can find at no cost other than the actual effort it takes to make a copy and tweak it this is going to make me more likely to put in the effort to create new works?

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

#190

Post by joquarky »

jnovek wrote: post #54
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.

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…

Why do they need 70+ years to recoup enough to make their efforts worthwhile?

A kid who grows up watching $favorite-show can never produce derivative works of that show within their lifetime.

Post reply on HN