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

191–200 of 208 posts

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

#191

Post by [deleted] »

Caracas288 wrote: post #181
jolmg wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

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

#192

Post by [deleted] »

Caracas288 wrote: post #181
jolmg wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

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

#193

Post by soundworlds »

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 a musician who has been releasing my work under CC0 / Public Domain for the last few years for these very reasons.

While I do agree in principal, it is important this is a consensual choice made by the artists themselves. That is the only way to have healthy cultural change.

At the moment, we have e.g. Suno's CEO, who has publicly stated "people never really liked making music in the first place" - this is the kind of detached and exploitative person that we are seeing trying to force copyright changes on the rest of us.

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

#194

Post by anilgulecha »

blks wrote: post #185
mchusma wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What incentive would they have when their customer also has the same option and will do it directly?

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

#195

Post by joquarky »

dageshi wrote: post #139
armchairhacker wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

> removing the ability of someone to make a living from the thing they created.

So layoffs should be illegal?

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

#196

Post by joquarky »

dageshi wrote: post #132
rpdillon wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That is not copyrights stated purpose? Copyright does not guarantee you an audience. Nothing guarantees you an audience, authors know this, everyone who creates anything ought to know this? Copyright just says that if you DO manage to create a work that truly connects with an audience, you're in a position to make money off it because it cannot be stolen from you. What is so wrong with that?

What is wrong with making backups if the work is so important?

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

#197

Post by rpdillon »

nucleogenesis wrote: post #138
rpdillon wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand copyright covers lots of things. It doesn't do a good job with any of them, sadly. > 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. That's not the choice. Novels will be written regardless, and there are ways to make money that are not copyright-related: Substack and Patreon are doing more to fund small…

> None of those authors are surviving and making money because someone can't copy their work and distribute it. I tend to agree with your sentiment but this line made me think you’re underestimating the degree to which the law stops the powerful from doing evil. They see the law as a hassle to be calculated against and if there is no legal friction to stealing and using others’ creations they just will. So it’s not t…

Yes, I agree with this. I think your correct to point out that the leverage a legitimate corporation has to push ripped-off works far exceeds what the piracy community's ability to do so when it is infringement.

That said, I increasingly see writers making money directly from their audience not because the audience is not allowed to make a copy of their work, but because they treat the writers writing as a service and they want to get updates every week and so they subscribe. I think copyright was created for a less connected world where it was much more natural to print them in bulk and then sell copies.

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

#198

Post by joquarky »

Tyr42 wrote: post #93
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…

Copyleft is built on copyright, do you think removing copyright protections is going to get people to release their source code?? I don't think so. Not unless you want to try and legislate some general copyleft law, but that's probably a nonstarter.

If you go back to the original purpose of copyleft, LLMs have made it obsolete.

Partly because reverse engineering source code is now trivial.

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

#199

Post by boxed »

LtWorf wrote: post #167
boxed wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Because the evidence only goes in one direction. If I can get substantially more work done because of AI tools that falsifies the idea that LLMs don't help. Same as a satellite orbiting the earth once with a camera filming falsifies flat earthism. It doesn't matter how much evidence there is to say the earth is flat, it's falsified.

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

#200

Post by LtWorf »

boxed wrote: post #199
LtWorf wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Because the evidence only goes in one direction. If I can get substantially more work done because of AI tools that falsifies the idea that LLMs don't help. Same as a satellite orbiting the earth once with a camera filming falsifies flat earthism. It doesn't matter how much evidence there is to say the earth is flat, it's falsified.

Except all scientific research points in the other direction so, my dear professional developer, in this situation you're the flat earther :)
Post reply on HN