4 ms·

American copyright law before 1976 was radically different from the current situation (which was largely implemented with the Copyright Act of 1976). Probably

by retrac 4y ago

American copyright law before 1976 was radically different from the current situation (which was largely implemented with the Copyright Act of 1976). Probably most importantly, unpublished works, and works without an explicit copyright mark (on paper!) were not under copyright. This is why nearly every single bit of software IBM wrote and provided to customers and users in the 50s to mid 70s is public domain; it was never copyright to begin with. Anyway, the copyright term in the USA and elsewhere too, have been repeatedly extended. I say it's a distinct possibility that some works under copyright now, will still being under copyright another 100 or even 1000 years from now. That is, assuming anyone is still around to sue and be sued over such things.

ben_w 4y ago
I suspect that AI generated content is (eventually, not the current versions) going to destroy copyright as a concept. The generally-stated reason for copyright is to incentivise the creation of more works, but when those works can be made for less than the cost of the food needed to feed a human for long enough to ask a machine to make it[0], the economic value disappears and only tradition remains. However, that's assuming it's purely economics; if art is humanity's version of peacock tails, then the effort is the point, and even an uploaded brain will be dismissed as "not capable of real art". [0] I don't know how much power a genuinely human level creative AI would consume, but let's compare one of the current image generators: For the human, 10 seconds to type in a prompt * minimum cost of keeping a human alive ($1.90 abject poverty threshold) = $0.00022 For the AI, maximum power draw of Mac mini M1 * 90 seconds to create an image = 3,510 joules; at $0.1/kWh[1] that's $0.0001 The cost of the AI doing the thing is about half the minimum possible cost of getting a human to ask the AI to do the thing. [1] Close enough: https://www.energybot.com/electricity-rates-by-state.html https://www.energybot.com/electricity-rates-by-state.html

by retrac 4y ago

ben_w 4y ago

I suspect that AI generated content is (eventually, not the current versions) going to destroy copyright as a concept. The generally-stated reason for copyright is to incentivise the creation of more works, but when those works can be made for less than the cost of the food needed to feed a human for long enough to ask a machine to make it[0], the economic value disappears and only tradition remains. However, that's assuming it's purely economics; if art is humanity's version of peacock tails, then the effort is the point, and even an uploaded brain will be dismissed as "not capable of real art". [0] I don't know how much power a genuinely human level creative AI would consume, but let's compare one of the current image generators: For the human, 10 seconds to type in a prompt * minimum cost of keeping a human alive ($1.90 abject poverty threshold) = $0.00022 For the AI, maximum power draw of Mac mini M1 * 90 seconds to create an image = 3,510 joules; at $0.1/kWh[1] that's $0.0001 The cost of the AI doing the thing is about half the minimum possible cost of getting a human to ask the AI to do the thing. [1] Close enough: https://www.energybot.com/electricity-rates-by-state.html https://www.energybot.com/electricity-rates-by-state.html