Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Is A.I. The Death of I.P.?

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 309 posts

Re: Is A.I. The Death of I.P.?

#221

Post by JumpCrisscross »

ricardo81 wrote: post #203
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> individual indiscretions vs wholesale scraping of billions of people's copyrighted work...some lawsuits don't change that fact Over the last decade, individual indiscretions have not been punished. Wholesale scraping is being punished. Some lawsuits do challenge the hypothesis that corporates' copyright violations are being treated more leniently than individuals'.

Why are you introducing this 'last decade' thing. Was the decade before not relevant? The original point was not about lawsuits anyway. Are they American lawsuits you're talking about? You seem to be conflating a whole bunch of things, seems like misdirection.

> Why are you introducing this 'last decade' thing. Was the decade before not relevant?

I'm arguing that policy preferences around copyright infringement have changed in general. In general, in 1990s, copyright infringement meant "crime, reprehensible, police, prisons, etc." for both individuals and coporations. In general, in the past decade, it's meant none of those things for either individuals or corporations. Yet it's meant fines and lawsuits for corporations with virtually none I can find, in America, aimed at individuals.

Also, LLMs were basically invented less than a decade ago [1].

> seems like misdirection

"Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents, and the like" [2].

[1] https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.03762

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Is A.I. The Death of I.P.?

#222

Post by chefandy »

BobaFloutist wrote: post #172
teddyh wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem is that our society has no other viable widespread mechanism to support Except, of course, UBI.

We don't have that. Maybe we should, but we don't.

Yep. Order of operations matters. This isn’t a theoretical “future problem” for a lot of people.

Re: Is A.I. The Death of I.P.?

#223

Post by djohnston »

gumballindie wrote: post #78
djohnston wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s no way AI services are going anywhere. If the US kneecaps itself for parasitic rent seekers then China will win and benefit from the productivity these tools produce.

So the proposal of sociopathic thieves is that we turn into china and steal people’s property? What an odd take.

It’s a hard world and we need to play to win.

Re: Is A.I. The Death of I.P.?

#224

Post by ricardo81 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #221
ricardo81 wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are you introducing this 'last decade' thing. Was the decade before not relevant? The original point was not about lawsuits anyway. Are they American lawsuits you're talking about? You seem to be conflating a whole bunch of things, seems like misdirection.

> Why are you introducing this 'last decade' thing. Was the decade before not relevant? I'm arguing that policy preferences around copyright infringement have changed in general . In general, in 1990s, copyright infringement meant "crime, reprehensible, police, prisons, etc." for both individuals and coporations. In general, in the past decade, it's meant none of those things for either individuals or corporations. Y…

Your link to the guidelines doesn't prevent me from implying you're directing away from the point, and nor should it.

>I'm arguing that policy preferences around copyright infringement have changed in general.

Perhaps they have, and I take on your take on that. In the end you were replying to me and the original poster so respect the spirit of those posts.

Re: Is A.I. The Death of I.P.?

#225

Post by reedciccio »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #199
EdwardDiego wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, they don't prosecute, they just threaten you into a settlement. Is that any better?

> they don't prosecute, they just threaten you into a settlement. Is that any better? Objectively, yes. Paying a settlement in private is better than being publicly prosecuted and then put in jail. That said, it's still no cakewalk. Do you have a source for individuals settling copyright claims? I'm not finding any recent stories nor surveys.

Try downloading pirated movies and see how long it takes for you to receive a letter from your ISP telling you to stop or else... It's automatic, that's why you don't hear about lawsuits anymore: not necessary, the law enforcement is semi automatic now.

Re: Is A.I. The Death of I.P.?

#226

Post by IcyWindows »

ricardo81 wrote: post #148
visarga wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And if you look at open source it does exactly that. Most AI models are open source/weights. People are giving away some of their best work because they want to cooperate with others to build things. Scientific publications also share knowledge openly. Only private journals are locking up papers, but they are losing ground. At least AI papers are free to read and implement. They share even code, datasets and trained…

It may be a good ethos but you can't simply undermine people's life work for your ethos especially when there's laws protecting their life work. Put yourself in their shoes. Maybe you use some AI derivative work for your own life's work and then when you've finally accomplished what you want to do, someone else duplicates it, or uses the majority of your work? What do you expect out of it. If you don't expect to be p…

Technology had made people's jobs obsolete for ages.

Re: Is A.I. The Death of I.P.?

#227

Post by tanseydavid »

rhystmills wrote: post #184
silveira wrote: post #160

I find it revealing that some decades ago when teenagers were copying mp3s in their rooms for their own enjoyment it was piracy, crime, reprehensible, police, prisons, etc. When corporations are doing mass copyright infringement, we are talking about death of IP or changing the copyright laws to accommodate them.

There are plenty of articles from major news orgs about we shouldn't accept LLMs infringing copyright. The New York Times are suing OpenAI.

>> There are plenty of articles from major news orgs

Opinion articles.

Re: Is A.I. The Death of I.P.?

#228

Post by pcthrowaway »

gumballindie wrote: post #63
tilwidnk wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Copyright is not a real thing. It's a fiction. Now, I don't have a college degree, but with my 60+ years life experience I can say, yes, copyright is a real thing, it protects people who create, from assholes and AI.

Am I the only one that loves a blunt and honest comment? Funny how advocates against property rights have no issue with corporations protecting their own. That’s fine. What they want is to legally steal from the average joe.

> Funny how advocates against property rights have no issue with corporations protecting their own

Are you just not aware that the most outspoken advocates against private property (and rights to it, including IP/copyright), also strongly oppose capitalism and the idea of corporations?

Re: Is A.I. The Death of I.P.?

#229

Post by tanseydavid »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #221
ricardo81 wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are you introducing this 'last decade' thing. Was the decade before not relevant? The original point was not about lawsuits anyway. Are they American lawsuits you're talking about? You seem to be conflating a whole bunch of things, seems like misdirection.

> Why are you introducing this 'last decade' thing. Was the decade before not relevant? I'm arguing that policy preferences around copyright infringement have changed in general . In general, in 1990s, copyright infringement meant "crime, reprehensible, police, prisons, etc." for both individuals and coporations. In general, in the past decade, it's meant none of those things for either individuals or corporations. Y…

I agree -- it does seem like intentional misdirection.

Re: Is A.I. The Death of I.P.?

#230

Post by jtriangle »

adamsilkey wrote: post #145
jtriangle wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now, I don't have a college degree, but with my 60+ years life experience I can say, yes, copyright is a real thing, it protects people who create, from assholes and AI. There, I've stolen your post. Did copyright protect you? No, it did not. Copyright is an idea we came up with that sounded good at the time, and it's come to pass at this point that the original idea was deeply flawed in ways we could never have pred…

> The truth is, intellectual property should be protected by those creating it. The whole point of government and laws and societal norms is that not everyone has to be deeply involved and specialized in protecting their rights. We default to people doing the right thing and seek out specialists (e.g. lawyers) when we're wronged.

Yeah, and it's a terrible system, because it effectively paywalls anything remotely resembling justice.
Post reply on HN