4 ms·

I really hope this weakens copyright. We can live without it.

by henvic 5y ago

lc9er 5y ago
Who can? Sure, Disney shouldn’t be able to copyright public domain works or Mickey Mouse until the end of time. But they also shouldn’t be able to swoop in, use your songs/artwork/software in their latest movie, without permission or appropriate compensation.
- mmastrac 5y ago
  Hobbling copyright would likely make Disney et al much weaker in the future, to where this might not be as big of a deal.
dvdkon 5y ago
Well, right now it could also just weaken copyleft while leaving proprietary non-public code copyright holders well-off.
eddieh 5y ago
Are you kidding? If I produce any creative work, don't copy it without my permission, full stop. © 2021
matthewmacleod 5y ago
Don’t be too eager! Weakened copyright doesn’t necessarily translate to an overall benefit, at least for software. Weakening copyright also weakens copyleft - for example, it seems reasonable to me that the producer of an open-source work should be entitled to require reciprocal openness from people who build upon it. If I can legitimately launder some GPL source code (say, a Linux kernel driver) through an ML model without being obliged to release the resulting code, I think everyone loses.
- blibble 5y ago
  > I think everyone loses. only people who have released their code publicly under a (mostly) open license so, not Microsoft
caconym_ 5y ago
Copyright doesn't just benefit huge corporations. For instance, without it, independent artists who rely on copying for distribution (authors, musicians, etc.) would find it much more difficult to make money off their work, mostly (IMO) because large corporate entities with large investments made in publication and distribution systems could simply take content and sell it themselves with zero obligation to the original creator(s). This process could be highly automated at scale, giving creators essentially zero chance to compete in the market. It's a bad idea. The thing about copyright law that needs reform is its bias toward the benefit of large corporate entities. Platforms' implementations of DMCA compliance allow "rights holders" to spam perjurious takedown requests en masse, garnishing the earnings of creators and legitimate rights holders in what can only be called (in addition to perjury) outright fraud. Companies like Github scrape the web for content, most of it copyrighted, and use it to construct new products for their own profit. Rare recitation events aside, I think their use case is legitimate fair use in the eyes of the law (and if you look at my comment history you'll see me vehemently arguing to that effect), but should it be? We don't seem to be asking that question, which is really disappointing--we're either complaining loudly and without substance, or blithely accepting the might-makes-right ethic as the central pillar of our IP law.
- kingsuper20 5y ago
  >Copyright doesn't just benefit huge corporations. For instance, without it, independent artists who rely on copying for distribution (authors, musicians, etc.) would find it much more difficult to make money off their work, That doesn't look like it's the point to me. ""[the United States Congress shall have power] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right , to their respective Writings and Discoveries." " As I read that, copyright is there to 'promote progress', not to maximize gains. No doubt there is a million linear feet of case law that got us where we are. Honestly, I rather like this whole question of copilot. I solidly appreciate the brilliance of github as a honeypot.
  - caconym_ 5y ago
    > To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right , to their respective Writings and Discoveries. What better way to promote said Progress than by making sure said Authors and Inventors can make enough money off their work to keep doing it? As written, it's a roundabout way to get at the instrumentality of capital, but if that's not what they had in mind then I'm not sure what they were getting at. Without copyright, a creator's rights to their own work aren't diminished; it's just that everyone else's are expanded to the same level. (I'd love to know if I'm way off base about this. I'm not a lawyer, and I'm sure it's been discussed to death.) > Honestly, I rather like this whole question of copilot. I solidly appreciate the brilliance of github as a honeypot. I think it's really cool, and I'd probably use it myself. As much as my favorite kinds of programming (e.g. writing experimental text editors) might not benefit from it, in my day job I sure would love to spend less time filling in boilerplate and looking up mundane API details. I don't mean to single Github out in my mention of big corporations benefiting from copyright law. Scraping vast quantities of copyrighted data to build new products is a common business model at this point, and--like other new IP-related paradigms enabled by modern information technology--I think it deserves a fresh look, being mindful of just what it is we're trying to accomplish with copyright law. As you say, it's not always obvious, even in written law.

I really hope this weakens copyright. We can live without it.

by henvic 5y ago

I really hope this weakens copyright. We can live without it.

Who can? Sure, Disney shouldn’t be able to copyright public domain works or Mickey Mouse until the end of time. But they also shouldn’t be able to swoop in, use your songs/artwork/software in their latest movie, without permission or appropriate compensation.

mmastrac 5y ago
Hobbling copyright would likely make Disney et al much weaker in the future, to where this might not be as big of a deal.

dvdkon 5y ago

Well, right now it could also just weaken copyleft while leaving proprietary non-public code copyright holders well-off.

eddieh 5y ago

matthewmacleod 5y ago

Don’t be too eager! Weakened copyright doesn’t necessarily translate to an overall benefit, at least for software. Weakening copyright also weakens copyleft - for example, it seems reasonable to me that the producer of an open-source work should be entitled to require reciprocal openness from people who build upon it. If I can legitimately launder some GPL source code (say, a Linux kernel driver) through an ML model without being obliged to release the resulting code, I think everyone loses.

blibble 5y ago
> I think everyone loses. only people who have released their code publicly under a (mostly) open license so, not Microsoft

caconym_ 5y ago

Copyright doesn't just benefit huge corporations. For instance, without it, independent artists who rely on copying for distribution (authors, musicians, etc.) would find it much more difficult to make money off their work, mostly (IMO) because large corporate entities with large investments made in publication and distribution systems could simply take content and sell it themselves with zero obligation to the original creator(s). This process could be highly automated at scale, giving creators essentially zero chance to compete in the market. It's a bad idea. The thing about copyright law that needs reform is its bias toward the benefit of large corporate entities. Platforms' implementations of DMCA compliance allow "rights holders" to spam perjurious takedown requests en masse, garnishing the earnings of creators and legitimate rights holders in what can only be called (in addition to perjury) outright fraud. Companies like Github scrape the web for content, most of it copyrighted, and use it to construct new products for their own profit. Rare recitation events aside, I think their use case is legitimate fair use in the eyes of the law (and if you look at my comment history you'll see me vehemently arguing to that effect), but should it be? We don't seem to be asking that question, which is really disappointing--we're either complaining loudly and without substance, or blithely accepting the might-makes-right ethic as the central pillar of our IP law.

kingsuper20 5y ago
>Copyright doesn't just benefit huge corporations. For instance, without it, independent artists who rely on copying for distribution (authors, musicians, etc.) would find it much more difficult to make money off their work, That doesn't look like it's the point to me. ""[the United States Congress shall have power] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right , to their respective Writings and Discoveries." " As I read that, copyright is there to 'promote progress', not to maximize gains. No doubt there is a million linear feet of case law that got us where we are. Honestly, I rather like this whole question of copilot. I solidly appreciate the brilliance of github as a honeypot.
- caconym_ 5y ago
  > To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right , to their respective Writings and Discoveries. What better way to promote said Progress than by making sure said Authors and Inventors can make enough money off their work to keep doing it? As written, it's a roundabout way to get at the instrumentality of capital, but if that's not what they had in mind then I'm not sure what they were getting at. Without copyright, a creator's rights to their own work aren't diminished; it's just that everyone else's are expanded to the same level. (I'd love to know if I'm way off base about this. I'm not a lawyer, and I'm sure it's been discussed to death.) > Honestly, I rather like this whole question of copilot. I solidly appreciate the brilliance of github as a honeypot. I think it's really cool, and I'd probably use it myself. As much as my favorite kinds of programming (e.g. writing experimental text editors) might not benefit from it, in my day job I sure would love to spend less time filling in boilerplate and looking up mundane API details. I don't mean to single Github out in my mention of big corporations benefiting from copyright law. Scraping vast quantities of copyrighted data to build new products is a common business model at this point, and--like other new IP-related paradigms enabled by modern information technology--I think it deserves a fresh look, being mindful of just what it is we're trying to accomplish with copyright law. As you say, it's not always obvious, even in written law.