Live data from Hacker News

US Copyright Office found AI companies breach copyright. Its boss was fired

theregister.com

301–310 of 410 posts

Re: US Copyright Office found AI companies breach copyright. Its boss was fired

#301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They aren't going to legalize, say, publishing Mario fangames or whatever. They're just going to make copyright allow AI training, because AI is what the owner class wants. That's not democratizing IP, that's just prejudicial (dis)enforcement against the creative class.

Millions of pages of fan fic based on existing IP have been written. There is a point where it doesn't really make sense trying to go after individuals especially if they make no money out of it. If we enter a world where anyone can create a new Mario game and there are thousands of them released on the public web it would be impossible for the rights holders to do anything, and it would be a PR bad move to go after…

Yes, but none of that has anything to do with AI. Or democratization.

The fact that copyright law is easy to violate and hard to enforce doesn't stop Nintendo from burning millions of dollars on legal fees to engage in life-ruining enforcement actions against randos making fangames.

"Democratization" with respect to copyright law would be changing the law to put Mario in the public domain, either by:

- Reducing term lengths to make Mario literally public domain. It's unclear whether or not such an act would survive the Takings Clause of the US Constitution. Perhaps you could get around that by just saying you can't enforce copyrights older than 20 years even though they nominally exist. Which brings us to...

- Adding legal exceptions to copyright to protect fans making fan games. Unlikely, since in the US we have common law, which means our exceptions have to be legislated from the judicial bench, and judges are extremely leery of 'fair use' arguments that basically say 'it is very inconvenient for me to get permission to use the thing'.

- Creating some kind of social copyright system that "just handles" royalty payments. This is probably the most literal interpretation of 'democratize'. I know of few extant systems for this, though - like, technically ASCAP is this, but NOBODY would ever hold up ASCAP as an example of how to do licensing right. Furthermore without legal backing, Nintendo can just hold out and retain traditional "my way or the highway" licensing rights.

- Outright abolishing copyright and telling artists to fend for themselves. This is the kind of solution that would herald either a total system collapse or extreme authoritarianism. It's like the local furniture guy selling sofas at 99% off because the Mafia is liquidating his gambling debts. Sure, I like free shit, but I also know that furniture guy is getting a pair of cement shoes tonight.

None of these are what AI companies talk about. Adding an exception just for AI training isn't democratizing IP, because you can't democratize AI training. AI is hideously memory-hungry and the accelerators you need to make it work are also expensive. I'm not even factoring in the power budget. They want to replace IP with something worse. The world they want is one where there are three to five foundation models, all owned and controlled by huge tech megacorps, and anyone who doesn't agree with them gets cut off.

Re: US Copyright Office found AI companies breach copyright. Its boss was fired

#302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That has nothing to do with IP, it's a personality rights claim. The US Supreme Court disagrees, the right of publicity and intellectual property law are explicitly linked. > The broadcast of a performer’s entire act may undercut the economic value of that performance in a manner analogous to the infringement of a copyright or patent. — Justice White

That's just an analog in an opinion, it's not binding. Also, that's just a new IP term then, but we were talking about copyright, not any abstract form of IP. Again, show me an example where an artist's style was used for copyright infringement in court. Can you produce even one example?

All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.

All right of publicity laws are intellectual property laws but not all intellectual property laws are right of publicity laws.

All copyright laws are intellectual property laws but not all intellectual property laws are copyright laws.

Right of publicity laws are intellectual property laws because the right of publicity is intellectual property. I don't know how else to articulate this over the internet, maybe its time to consult an AI?

Re: US Copyright Office found AI companies breach copyright. Its boss was fired

#303
post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I broadly agree in that sure, unfettered access to copyrighted material will AI more capable, but more capable of what exactly? For national security reasons I'm perfectly fine with giving LLMs unfettered access to various academic publications, scientific and technical information, that sort of thing. I'm a little more on the fence about proprietary code, but I have a hard time believing there isn't enough code out…

If common culture is an effective substrate to communicate ideas as in we can use shared pop culture references to make metaphors to explain complex ideas then the common culture that large companies have ensnared in excessively long copyrights and trademarks to generate massive profits is a useful thing for an LLM that is designed to convey ideas to have embedded in it. If I'm learning about kinematics maybe it woul…

Fair point, we use metaphor to explain and understand a variety of topics, and a lot of those metaphors are best understood through pop culture analogies.

A reasonable compromise then is that you can train an AI on Wikipedia, more-or-less. An AI trained this way will have a robust understanding of Superman, enough that it can communicate through metaphor, but it won't have the training data necessary to create a ton of infringing content about Superman (well, it won't be able to create good infringing content anyway. It'll probably have access to a lot of plot summaries but nothing that would help it make a particularly interesting Superman comic or video).

To me it seems like encyclopedias use copyrighted pop culture in a way that constitutes fair use, and so training on them seems fine as long as they consent to it.

Re: US Copyright Office found AI companies breach copyright. Its boss was fired

#304
post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Doing a cover song requires permission, and doing it without that permission can be illegal. I believe cover song licensing is available mechanically; you don't need permission, you just need to follow the procedures including sending the licensing fees to a rights clearing house. Music has a lot of mechanical licenses and clearing houses, as opposed to other categories of works.

> you don't need permission, you just need to follow the procedures Those procedures are how you ask for permission. As you say, it usually involves a fee but doesn't have to.

(in the US) Mechanical licenses are compulsory; you don't need permission, you can just follow the forms and pay the fees set by the Copyright Royalty Board (appointed by the Librarian of Congress). You can ask the rightsholder to negotiate a lower fee, but there's no need for consent of the rightsholder if you notify as required (within 30 days of recording and before distribution) and pay the set fees.

Re: US Copyright Office found AI companies breach copyright. Its boss was fired

#305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's just an analog in an opinion, it's not binding. Also, that's just a new IP term then, but we were talking about copyright, not any abstract form of IP. Again, show me an example where an artist's style was used for copyright infringement in court. Can you produce even one example?

All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. All right of publicity laws are intellectual property laws but not all intellectual property laws are right of publicity laws. All copyright laws are intellectual property laws but not all intellectual property laws are copyright laws. Right of publicity laws are intellectual property laws because the right of publicity is intellectual property. I don't…

My point is that the kind of IP at issue in this post and discussion is copyright, not personality rights. If we're talking about the views of the copyright office and how that relates to artists, it's implicit that we're staying in copyright land, because there has never been a case about style-as-IP in visual art.

Re: US Copyright Office found AI companies breach copyright. Its boss was fired

#306
post #78
post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t believe this is true? I’m pretty sure that you’re prohibited from making money from that fan fiction, not from writing it at all. So I don’t understand the claim that copyright “massively stifles” creativity. There are of course examples of people not being able to make money on specific “ideas” because of copyright laws, but that doesn’t seem to me to be “massively stifling” creativity itself, especially giv…

> And if we got rid of copyright law, wouldn’t we be in that exact place, where people wouldn’t be allowed to make money off of creative endeavors? This is addressed in the second article I linked.

Is it though? All I see is hand-waving.

Re: US Copyright Office found AI companies breach copyright. Its boss was fired

#307
post #289
post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>What is stopping me from “starting an AI company” (LLC, sure), torrenting all ebooks (which Facebook did), and as long as I don’t seed, I’m golden? Nothing. You don't even need the LLC. I don't think anyone got prosecuted for only downloading. All prosecutions were for distribution. Note that if you're torrenting, even if you stop the moment it's finished (and thus never goes to "seeding"), you're still uploading, a…

Which is still what Facebook did, if I'm not mistaken. There's no way they torrented and managed to upload less than 1 bit.

You're right. They claimed they made efforts to minimize seeding, but minimal is not none, as you say.

Re: US Copyright Office found AI companies breach copyright. Its boss was fired

#308

I wonder when general internet sentiment moved from pro-piracy to IP maximalism. Fascinating shift.

It's not that complicated: little guy taking stuff from big corp (then) vs. big corp taking stuff from little guy (now). Similar to the recent debates over permissive open source licenses and corporate exploitation.

As for the zeitgeist, I'm not sure anything has materially changed. Recently, creators have been very upset over Silicon Valley AI companies ingesting their output. Is this really reflective of "general internet sentiment"? Would those same people have supported abolition of copyright in the past? I doubt it.

Re: US Copyright Office found AI companies breach copyright. Its boss was fired

#309
post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Humans can read a book, get inspiration, and write a new book and not be litigated against Humans get litigated against this all the time . There is such thing as, charitably, being too inspired. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_songs_subject_to_plagi...

If you follow these cases more closely over time you'll find that they're less an example of humans stealing work from others and more an example of typical human greed and pride. Old, well established musicians arguing that younger musicians stole from them for using a chord progression used in dozens of songs before their own original, or a melody on the pentatonic scale that sounds like many melodies on the pentat…

To the point that Billy Joel "famously" credited the songwriter for one of his songs ("This Night") as "Billy Joel, Ludwig van Beethoven".
Post reply on HN