3 ms·

We miss the underlying problem, the real motivations behind this push towards AI-inventors. AI inventors are owned entities. Anything "invented" by them would

We miss the underlying problem, the real motivations behind this push towards AI-inventors. AI inventors are owned entities. Anything "invented" by them would be wholly owned by whatever entity owns or controls the AI. Allowing this could open the door to everyday software tools becoming co-authors. Scenario: Microsoft owns copyright over AI and makes AI available as part of windows. Are all "inventions" made using windows now also partially created/owned by Microsoft? Nobody would say that Microsoft should get rights to a book because the author using Word's spellchecker, but what about an AI-based translator program? Is the AI a co-author? If so, Microsoft could argue that it is a part owner of everything created using an AI-enabled MSword. Scenario: Photographer takes picture of mountain. They get copyright because the contributed to the setting up of the camera. They pick the scene and they pushed the button. But new AI camera, with AI trained on all the best photographs, is now in control. Autofocus does not make the camera a creator, but an AI that has a hand in every detail of the photograph? An AI that is legally allowed to be a copyright owner? Is every photograph now a joint work between human and AI? There are lots of iPhone cameras out there. What is Apple's stance on AI creators?

flimflamm 5y ago
" Are all "inventions" made using windows now also partially created/owned by Microsoft? " I suppose that depends on what crafty Microsoft lawyers have written to the contracts. I would assume no. It's a tool which is in the possession of the person who bought the license from Microsoft.
elcomet 5y ago
Nobody would use Word if the terms of service said that Microsoft will be co-owner of everything you write
- swarnie 5y ago
  You have too much faith in humanity I bet a billion people getting word bundled with O365 would still use it, mostly because no one would have read page 3456 of the ToS and wouldn't know any better. Some nerd packs online would scream it from the rooftops but 98% of the population wouldn't care.
  - mr_toad 5y ago
    Bigger enterprises would have a problem, and ultimately its big enterprise that drives adoption of Microsoft products. Everyone else uses it because everyone else uses it.
  - elcomet 5y ago
    No company or professional user would use word if they did not own their work. Maybe people using word for non professional matters would.
- chii 5y ago
  if Word made writing so much easier that not using meant not being able to write at all, then they would agree to this TOS to use Word.
  - TeMPOraL 5y ago
    Also the degree of co-ownership matters. It might start with something small, like 1% of all royalties if > 100k USD, or a limited non-compete. Not enough to scare people off, enough to normalize the practice. Over time, the scope of co-ownership could be gradually increased, and it'll be harder to fight it off, as any pushback will be discussed in terms of particular conditions of a particular company, instead of pushing back on the whole business model.
    - mdale 5y ago
      I look at the cloud switching costs or entrenched asymmetrical relationship of selling "software" in cloud first environment. Startups are already in this boat of growing percentage of value created allocated to the platforms of distribution or systems that the ideas runs on.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
OliverJones 5y ago
Yeah. Those of us who patent stuff when employed are pretty darn close to "owned entities." Part of the filing process is assigning the patent rights to the employer. Can an AI sign a patent assignment document or a work-for-hire contract? What would it mean for an AI to sign such a document "freely"? And, Michaelangelo used some tech (scaffolding) while painting the ceiling of that chapel (Sistine) where the catholic bishops hang out while choosing a new bishop of Rome. Reliable scaffolding was certainly enabling tech for that project. It doesn't mean the scaffolding gets a credit.
- silexia 5y ago
  Copyright and trademarks are generally good and should continue with some reforms. AI tools should not get credit as you point out. Patents though are a disaster for humanity and are used to create corrupt monopolies that overcharge by many billions of dollars because they have no competition. Further patents stop new innovation because companies like Boeing own all the patents related to flying commercially viable airplanes. You might have a good idea for a new airplane company, but you can't do it because Boeing owns all the patents on everything that you will need to build a flying plane.

flimflamm 5y ago

" Are all "inventions" made using windows now also partially created/owned by Microsoft? " I suppose that depends on what crafty Microsoft lawyers have written to the contracts. I would assume no. It's a tool which is in the possession of the person who bought the license from Microsoft.

elcomet 5y ago

Nobody would use Word if the terms of service said that Microsoft will be co-owner of everything you write

swarnie 5y ago
You have too much faith in humanity I bet a billion people getting word bundled with O365 would still use it, mostly because no one would have read page 3456 of the ToS and wouldn't know any better. Some nerd packs online would scream it from the rooftops but 98% of the population wouldn't care.
- mr_toad 5y ago
  Bigger enterprises would have a problem, and ultimately its big enterprise that drives adoption of Microsoft products. Everyone else uses it because everyone else uses it.
- elcomet 5y ago
  No company or professional user would use word if they did not own their work. Maybe people using word for non professional matters would.
chii 5y ago
if Word made writing so much easier that not using meant not being able to write at all, then they would agree to this TOS to use Word.
- TeMPOraL 5y ago
  Also the degree of co-ownership matters. It might start with something small, like 1% of all royalties if > 100k USD, or a limited non-compete. Not enough to scare people off, enough to normalize the practice. Over time, the scope of co-ownership could be gradually increased, and it'll be harder to fight it off, as any pushback will be discussed in terms of particular conditions of a particular company, instead of pushing back on the whole business model.
  - mdale 5y ago
    I look at the cloud switching costs or entrenched asymmetrical relationship of selling "software" in cloud first environment. Startups are already in this boat of growing percentage of value created allocated to the platforms of distribution or systems that the ideas runs on.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

OliverJones 5y ago

Yeah. Those of us who patent stuff when employed are pretty darn close to "owned entities." Part of the filing process is assigning the patent rights to the employer. Can an AI sign a patent assignment document or a work-for-hire contract? What would it mean for an AI to sign such a document "freely"? And, Michaelangelo used some tech (scaffolding) while painting the ceiling of that chapel (Sistine) where the catholic bishops hang out while choosing a new bishop of Rome. Reliable scaffolding was certainly enabling tech for that project. It doesn't mean the scaffolding gets a credit.

silexia 5y ago
Copyright and trademarks are generally good and should continue with some reforms. AI tools should not get credit as you point out. Patents though are a disaster for humanity and are used to create corrupt monopolies that overcharge by many billions of dollars because they have no competition. Further patents stop new innovation because companies like Boeing own all the patents related to flying commercially viable airplanes. You might have a good idea for a new airplane company, but you can't do it because Boeing owns all the patents on everything that you will need to build a flying plane.