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

An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip

theaiunderwriter.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 927 posts

Re: An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip

#251

Post by codedokode »

ryandamm wrote: post #235
masfuerte wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't really care. Either enforce the current copyright regime and sue the AI companies to dust. Or abolish copyright and let us all go hog wild. But this halfway house where you can ignore the law as long as you've got enough money is disgusting.

This may not be a particularly popular opinion, but current copyright laws in the US are pretty clearly in favor of training an AI as a transformative act, and covered by fair use. (I did confirm this belief in conversation with an IP attorney earlier this week, by the way, though I myself am not a lawyer.) The best-positioned lawsuits to win, like NYTimes vs. OpenAI/MS, is actually based on violating terms of use, r…

> Regardless, the current law would suggest that the infringing action happens at inference time, not training.

Zuckerberg downloading a large library of pirated articles does not violate any laws? I think you can get a life sentence for merely posting links to the library.

Re: An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip

#252

Post by raspyberr »

r0s wrote: post #244
mlsu wrote: post #137

I was really hoping that the conversation around AI art would at least be partially centered on the perhaps now dated "2008 pirate party" idea that intellectual property, the royalty system, the draconian copyright laws that we have today are deeply silly, rooted in a fiction, and used over and over again, primarily by the rich and powerful, to stifle original ideas and hold back cultural innovation. Unfortunately, i…

It's not baffling in the least. No matter the extent you believe in the freedom of information, few believe anyone should then be free to profit from someone else's work without attribution. You seem to think it would be okay for disney to market and charge for my own personal original characters and art, claiming them as their own original idea. Why is that?

Yes. I 100% unironically believe that anyone should be able to use anyone else's work royalty/copyright free after 10-20 years instead of 170 in the UK. Could you please justify why 170 years is in any way a reasonable amount of time?

Re: An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip

#253

Post by Smar »

lmm wrote: post #194
armchairhacker wrote: post #190

You're allowed to draw IP and share your drawings. You're allowed to screenshot and photoshop IP. You're allowed to sell tools that help others draw and photoshop IP*. You're not allowed to sell these drawings and photoshops. I don't see why an AI can't generate IP, even if the AI is being sold. What's not allowed is selling the generated IP. Style is even more permissive: you're allowed to sell something in any styl…

> You're allowed to draw IP and share your drawings. No you're not, not in general. The copyright holder has the exclusive right to prepare and distribute derivative works. > You're allowed to screenshot and photoshop IP. Again, no, not in general. > You're allowed to sell tools that help others draw and photoshop IP*. Sort of. You're allowed to sell tools that might be used for those purposes. You're not allowed to…

I guess country of residence has a lot of relevance here...

Re: An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip

#254

Post by codedokode »

ppseafield wrote: post #191
onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> to stifle original ideas and hold back cultural innovation. How is copyright stifling innovation? You could not rip something off more blatantly than Gravity, which had the lawsuit dismissed entirely. Taurus vs Stairway to Heaven, the list goes on and on and on. You can often get away with nearly murder ripping off other people's stuff.

Copyright makes the legality of arXiv and SciHub questionable at best. It locks publicly funded research behind paywalls. It makes being able to search the law (including case law) of the US incredibly expensive. It puts a burden on platforms to be beholden to DMCA takedowns, lest the content owner go to their hosting or DNS provider, has happened to itch.io. It adds licensing fees onto public musical performances (A…

> Copyright makes the legality of arXiv

Why? I thought that authors post the articles to arxiv themselves.

> It locks publicly funded research behind paywalls.

It is not copyright, it is scientists who do not want to publish their work (that they got paid for) in open access journals. And it seems the reason is that we have the system where your career advances better if you publish in paid journals.

Re: An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip

#255

Post by philipkglass »

codedokode wrote: post #251
ryandamm wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This may not be a particularly popular opinion, but current copyright laws in the US are pretty clearly in favor of training an AI as a transformative act, and covered by fair use. (I did confirm this belief in conversation with an IP attorney earlier this week, by the way, though I myself am not a lawyer.) The best-positioned lawsuits to win, like NYTimes vs. OpenAI/MS, is actually based on violating terms of use, r…

> Regardless, the current law would suggest that the infringing action happens at inference time, not training. Zuckerberg downloading a large library of pirated articles does not violate any laws? I think you can get a life sentence for merely posting links to the library.

I think you can get a life sentence for merely posting links to the library.

This isn't true in the United States. I would be surprised if it were true in any country. Many people have posted sci-hub links here, and to my knowledge nobody has ever suffered legal problems from it:

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

Re: An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip

#256

Post by fiddlerwoaroof »

boplicity wrote: post #241
mlsu wrote: post #137

I was really hoping that the conversation around AI art would at least be partially centered on the perhaps now dated "2008 pirate party" idea that intellectual property, the royalty system, the draconian copyright laws that we have today are deeply silly, rooted in a fiction, and used over and over again, primarily by the rich and powerful, to stifle original ideas and hold back cultural innovation. Unfortunately, i…

> used over and over again, primarily by the rich and powerful This is where the argument falls apart. Not because the copyright isn't used by the rich and powerful, but because it misses the fact that copyright also grants very powerful rights to otherwise powerless individuals, thus allowing for many small businesses and individuals to earn a living based on the rights granted by our current copyright system.

Rights you basically can’t use without a lot of money

Re: An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip

#257

Post by codedokode »

ryandrake wrote: post #146
mlsu wrote: post #137

I was really hoping that the conversation around AI art would at least be partially centered on the perhaps now dated "2008 pirate party" idea that intellectual property, the royalty system, the draconian copyright laws that we have today are deeply silly, rooted in a fiction, and used over and over again, primarily by the rich and powerful, to stifle original ideas and hold back cultural innovation. Unfortunately, i…

Not just some particular collection of pixels, but an infinite number of combinations of collections of pixels , any of which remotely invoke a shadow of similarity to hundreds of "properties" that Disney lays claim to.

But why do you want to make a collection of pixels that resembles existing characters and not create your own?

Re: An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip

#258

Post by fiddlerwoaroof »

serviceberry wrote: post #238
mlsu wrote: post #137

I was really hoping that the conversation around AI art would at least be partially centered on the perhaps now dated "2008 pirate party" idea that intellectual property, the royalty system, the draconian copyright laws that we have today are deeply silly, rooted in a fiction, and used over and over again, primarily by the rich and powerful, to stifle original ideas and hold back cultural innovation. Unfortunately, i…

What's the damage to the society done by Disney holding the rights to Mickey Mouse? Like, if we're being honest? Patents, sure. They're abused and come at a cost to the society. But all we've done here is created a culture where, in some sort of an imagined David-vs-Goliath struggle against Disney, we've enabled a tech culture where it's OK to train gen AI tech on works of small-scale artists pilfered on an unprecede…

It’s worse in music: the folk music that came before recorded music had a long history of everyone borrowing and putting their own spin on someone else’s tune and, today, this is viewed as some kind of assault on the originator of the tune.

If companies can’t gatekeep our artistic culture for money, we’ll be better able to enjoy it.

Re: An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip

#259

Post by card_zero »

WhyOhWhyQ wrote: post #224
mlsu wrote: post #137

I was really hoping that the conversation around AI art would at least be partially centered on the perhaps now dated "2008 pirate party" idea that intellectual property, the royalty system, the draconian copyright laws that we have today are deeply silly, rooted in a fiction, and used over and over again, primarily by the rich and powerful, to stifle original ideas and hold back cultural innovation. Unfortunately, i…

We're about to witness a fundamental shift in the human experience. Some time in the near future there will not be a single act of creation you can do that isn't trivial compared to the result of typing "make cool thing please now" into the computer. And your position is to add to the problem because with your policy anything I create should get chucked into the LLM grinder by any and everybody. How do I get my human…

I don't know, that sounds like the basic argument for copyright: "I created a cool thing, therefore I should be able to milk it for the rest of my life". Without this perk, creatives are less motivated. Would that be bad? I guess an extreme version would be a world where you can only publish anonymously and with no tangible reward.

Re: An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip

#260

Post by fullshark »

mlsu wrote: post #137

I was really hoping that the conversation around AI art would at least be partially centered on the perhaps now dated "2008 pirate party" idea that intellectual property, the royalty system, the draconian copyright laws that we have today are deeply silly, rooted in a fiction, and used over and over again, primarily by the rich and powerful, to stifle original ideas and hold back cultural innovation. Unfortunately, i…

All those ideas were rationalizations because people didn’t want to pay for stuff, just like your post effectively blaming the victim of IP theft cause corporations undeniably do suck so we shouldn’t care if they suffer.
Post reply on HN