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

201–207 of 207 posts

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

#201

Post by paulddraper »

inglor_cz wrote: post #110
paulddraper wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Getting rid of copyright is going to make that problem worse not better... I'm wondering if you are reasoning correctly about this.

I'd say that random people, if they reuse a copyrighted material, are a lot more likely to veer far off the beaten path than the big studios. Fan fiction, even if building on previous materials, seems to be much less repetitive to me.

Sure.

Your point was studios recycle IP a lot.

My point is without copyright studios would recycle it even more.

And your point now is that it would be higher quality.

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

#202

Post by wizzwizz4 »

myrmidon wrote: post #151
wizzwizz4 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Not all motivation is externally compelled: there is such a thing as intrinsic motivation. Humans aren't amoral ideal rational economic actors. I do agree, though, that a few years' copyright provides most of the benefits of copyright, while removing most of the downsides (except stuff like clear abuses of anti-circumvention laws, which will happen for as long as there is a system that enables it).

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

#203

Post by blks »

anilgulecha wrote: post #194
blks wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Do what? Customer searching for a physical book will do print-on-demand or what do you mean? Most customers will go with a cheap and convenient option

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

#204

Post by Huarache1 »

saaaaaam wrote: post #173
Huarache1 wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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”?

As an example, the entirety of the Disney Catalogue makes multiple references, or retellings of old Folk Tales from Europe, while also defending their "Intellectual Property" so fiercely, that they artificially extended copyright from 56 years to 96 years for corporately owned products, or the author's life and 70 years for a single author.

It used to be roughly on par with Patent expiration, but it's now almost either 100 years to almost 200.

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

#205

Post by anilgulecha »

blks wrote: post #203
anilgulecha wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Do what? Customer searching for a physical book will do print-on-demand or what do you mean? Most customers will go with a cheap and convenient option

A free ebook download. What is cheaper and more convenient.

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

#206

Post by inglor_cz »

paulddraper wrote: post #201
inglor_cz wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say that random people, if they reuse a copyrighted material, are a lot more likely to veer far off the beaten path than the big studios. Fan fiction, even if building on previous materials, seems to be much less repetitive to me.

Sure. Your point was studios recycle IP a lot. My point is without copyright studios would recycle it even more . And your point now is that it would be higher quality.

My main point was that they recycle lazily, producing slop before the name even existed. Not every adaptation is lazy, I'd say that Odyssey is quite good, even though the original work is 100 generations old.

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

#207

Post by paulddraper »

inglor_cz wrote: post #206
paulddraper wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. Your point was studios recycle IP a lot. My point is without copyright studios would recycle it even more . And your point now is that it would be higher quality.

My main point was that they recycle lazily, producing slop before the name even existed. Not every adaptation is lazy, I'd say that Odyssey is quite good, even though the original work is 100 generations old.

Just imagine how much slop they could make if licensing wasn't holding them back
Post reply on HN