Live data from Hacker News

Things are about to get worse for generative AI

garymarcus.substack.com

761–769 of 769 posts

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#761

Am I the only one believing that copyright has long outlived its usefulness? After all, copyright is not some natural law or mathematical consequence, but rather a social convention that made sense in the era of the printing press.

As an author, I do want the stories I write and worlds I build to be protected for a reasonable period. Right now, copyright is a significant discouragement to any other entities from taking a story I wrote and claiming it as their own and preventing me from ever growing an audience for my work. It’s far from perfect, and I can’t afford litigation, but it enshrines a cultural value of allowing people to create things…

Thanks for the perspective.

I agree I’d like a world full of great art, and a decent fraction of human energy put into art-making seems good.

I grant that copyright plus free markets is one decent way of achieving this.

Now that I try to elaborate the downsides of copyright I fail, other than to say I want to keep legal barriers in the digital realm to an absolute minimum, so as to speed progress.

When I was younger I thought that great art was made by either starving artists or artists with wealthy patrons, but I guess much of the art I enjoy is made by professional artists participating in the copyright economy.

So I suppose agree, though I’d like to see more public dialog analyzing the issue, considering modifications (like you propose in another comment) or alternatives (such as public funding for the arts, tax breaks for patrons, etc.).

(I guess I let my contempt for the patent system bleed into my thinking on copyright.)

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#762
post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Copyright in its current form yes. But the concept and closer to the original (creators lifetime + x years or some such) seems still very valuable. Copyright is still the bedrock of how many tech software business actually can make money.

Which is why there are so many competing interests (in this thread, and elsewhere) trying to say it should be 100% legal to steal from those companies. They all want to profit unfairly off the work of others.

Well it wouldn’t be stealing if the work was not covered by copyright. It also wouldn’t be “unfair” if the rules were changed. —- I’m asking that we imagine how else could our information economy look if we had some other legal foundation. Maybe, like markets, copyright is already close to an ideal, but perhaps there’s some economic innovation here yet undiscovered or unexplored?

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#763

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. All of these just exposes the absurdity that is copyright laws. It happened before with the Internet and online piracy too, when redistribution became free and easy, yet the corporations and copyright holders refused to budge so they can retain their profits.

Here’s what happens with no copyright: No one will have any right to their own creations. Anything an individual makes will belong to everyone. And since no attribution is required, no one will know who made it. An average artist’s value to society goes from low to non-existent. In this world. big corporations will take everything created, claim as their own, and profit from it. Right now, big corporations using othe…

Moral rights can still exist, so they can't claim that they made it. This assumes that big corporations will be able to profit to the infinite extent we have today without copyright. Law is not ethics. And finally, this is already the case; without the money to sue, you effectively already own no IP. It's either copyright for only big entities, or for nobody at all.

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#764
post #726

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hasn't pop art already been there done that?

There are extensions, and exceptions, and different licenses applicable, and fair use, and the concept of transformativeness, and... :) Basically, IANAL, but if you just draw a picture of Mario, all you can do is hang it on your fridge. If you make it out of colored oatmeal, that may be enough of a transformative work for you to be able to sell and exhibit it. Or, say, a satirical cartoon for your newspaper featuring…

https://www.etsy.com/market/mario

Nintendo isn’t getting a cent from any of this commercial activity.

On Apple Music or Spotify if I search for Mario OST I get a bunch of third party MIDI renderings of various quality.

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#765
post #550

Per United States law, imagery/art/music/text/photography generated by non-human means (such as machinery, animals, or generative AI) cannot hold copyright. https://copyright.gov/comp3/chap300/ch300-copyrightable-auth... Section 306 on page 7. I'm not sure how it'll hold up in law to claim copyright violations against something that wasn't created by a person. It'll really depend on the lawyers and judge's interpreta…

So on your interpretation if I photocopy a book and then sell the photocopies to my friends there is no infringment? I don't think so, but hey, a photocopier is a machine and it generated the book so should be ok!

That isn't my interpretation, nor did I ever make that statement. That IS infact a valid definition of copyright infringement. The source material is copyrighted and you're making a literal copy of it via photocopier. I don't know how you twisted the logic on that to conclude that would not be infringement.

However, it does also depend what you do with the photocopies, merely photocopying a book and keeping it privately is on par with copying a music CD as a backup. The infringement occurs when you're reusing it as your own, such as selling, publishing, or broadcasting the copyrighted material.

What I stated is that generated art such as images/music/photos that are by a non human cannot be copyrighted. A photocopier isn't generating anything, it's a copy, it's replication and it isn't generating a new thing.

My personal opinion is that AI generated artwork should be treated as equal to fanart when generating copyright influenced material.

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#766
post #710

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> culture is a communal property Public domain / communal property is also part of copyright, so it's not as if this is some forgotten concept that needs to be restored to the discourse. Georgism is underconsidered, though. > By focusing solely on the legal implications and ignoring the historical context of cultural storytelling The legal implications are human implications and as much a part of culture as anything…

The incentives remain poorly aligned though. Otherwise the people who actually author the copyrighted works (actors, special effects artists, etc) wouldn't have had to go on strike for so long to get proper compensation. The value still remains with the people who own the reproduction capabilities, and only scraps go to the artists. Artists can get scraps without selling copyright too, just look at patreon

What you're mentioning here is basically about other advantages that accrue to capital vs labor, not copyright. Hence the fact strikes happen across the boundaries of where copyright matters -- auto manufacturing work doesn't have anything to do with copyright (acting doesn't really yet either), yet there are strikes for comp and other job benefits.

In situations where scraps go to artists, it's because they don't have the capital to invest creating/distributing their work, so as part of their contract or employment agreement, they sell the copyright to the work. This isn't copyright's fault: this situation would exist without any copyright at all (though it would likely be worse). And it is not universal. There are people who do create the work on their own time/dime, and copyright gives them immense leverage when it comes time to distribute & sell the work.

Patronage is another leg on the stool that can support a creator's career, but it's no replacement for copyright -- it leaves the creator with all the same problems and none of the benefits. You either end up with similar problems with relationship with capital (a few wealthy patrons who want to invest in you) or you end up having to build your wide audience and hope that as you do some of those convert even though there's no obligation and the culture increasingly normalizes the perception that free access to the fruits of other people's creative labor is how things should be.

And in a career as tenuous as creative work, knocking out the copyright leg from the stool is going to make the balancing act harder.

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#767
post #743

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The law generally tries to create a level playing field (or more level playing field). The alternative, creating two classes, those who the law helps and those it doesn't, gets incredibly complicated and easy to game: the powerful will get their version of the law. In the name of protecting the weak, the law will protect the powerful. Making everything much worse.

This isn't true. I can think of many examples off the top of my head. Tax brackets, accredited investors, professional regulation, varying classes of drivers licenses, voting ages, retirement age and pension eligibility... the list goes on and on.

You are right. The entire basis of those laws is the two classes.

I was referring to laws (such as copyright) that don't have an inherent class distinction dimension. Since separating classes is not a primary concern of copyright, having two classes creates an arbitrary line which will almost certainly end up where the rich want it.

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#768

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, whoever operates the LLM service is liable for unauthorized modification, reproduction and distribution of copyrighted work to users.

Ok, so is it ok if I run the whole thing on my own hardware, and never distribute? If not, how does that differ from me making an unauthorized pencil drawing of Mario?

It's no different than pirating. No one will care unless you start sharing or try to start a business from it.

Re: Things are about to get worse for generative AI

#769
post #743

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't true. I can think of many examples off the top of my head. Tax brackets, accredited investors, professional regulation, varying classes of drivers licenses, voting ages, retirement age and pension eligibility... the list goes on and on.

You are right. The entire basis of those laws is the two classes. I was referring to laws (such as copyright) that don't have an inherent class distinction dimension. Since separating classes is not a primary concern of copyright, having two classes creates an arbitrary line which will almost certainly end up where the rich want it.

> Since separating classes is not a primary concern of copyright,

This is also incorrect as copyright is intrinsically about creating two classes of people -- those who own the copyright and those who don't.

Post reply on HN