3 ms·

> If you wrote a book by quoting choice paragraphs from other books, without crediting any of them, presenting the new book as simply your pile of deep insights

> If you wrote a book by quoting choice paragraphs from other books, without crediting any of them, presenting the new book as simply your pile of deep insights This is quite literally how most of the Old and New Testaments came into existence. The authors of Matthew and Luke certainly didn't bother mentioning that they copied a bunch of stuff from Mark and whatever the Q source is (my bet is on either the Gospel of Thomas or some source thereof). Nor did the authors of Leviticus and such mention how they ripped large swaths of what's now known as Mosaic Law straight from Hittite laws and the Code of Hammurabi. These works are nonetheless considered pretty transformative.

wizzwizz4 4y ago
> This is quite literally how most of the Old and New Testaments came into existence. That happened a few (thousand) weeks before copyright law was invented. > The authors of Matthew and Luke certainly didn't bother mentioning that they copied a bunch of stuff from Mark and whatever the Q source is (my bet is on either the Gospel of Thomas or some source thereof). Nor did the authors of Leviticus and such mention how they ripped large swaths of what's now known as Mosaic Law straight from Hittite laws and the Code of Hammurabi. The Q source (two-source hypothesis and four-source hypothesis both) is speculative, and there are several reasons to criticise the theory – such as lack of corroborating historical evidence that the Q source ever existed as a separate document. That aside, Leviticus likely got its Hittite and Hammurabi influences via Mosaic Law, not (primarily) the other way around. (Legal systems influence other legal systems? Who knew‽) Merely saying the same thing isn't protected by modern copyright; facts are not copyrightable. (There is such a thing as "database rights", but that doesn't really come into play, here.) > These works are nonetheless considered pretty transformative. The merits of our current copyright regime aren't terribly relevant, here. If you want to change the law, change the law; don't try to have the existing law interpreted differently in select cases, especially if you're only doing that where it benefits already-powerful entities like Disney or Microsoft.
- yellowapple 4y ago
  > don't try to have the existing law interpreted differently in select cases, especially if you're only doing that where it benefits already-powerful entities like Disney or Microsoft. Who says it only benefits the already-powerful entities, or that it even benefits them at all in the long run? As evident from my other comments on this topic, my hope (and indeed expectation) is that they'll shoot themselves in the foot and be hoisted by their own copyright-infringing petard. It wasn't that long ago when copyright enforcement wasn't a thing, and that lack of enforcement didn't seem to stop people from creating all sorts of artistic and literary and musical works, great in quantity and quality alike. The more the megacorporations backtrack on their copyright absolutism and admit that ignoring copyright expedites creative work, the more ammunition the rest of us have against their continued insistence on copyright absolutism. Put simply: Copilot sets a precedent that I suspect will lead to the downfall of intellectual property law entirely. Probably not alone, but very likely one of several dominoes toppling toward that end result.
  - wizzwizz4 4y ago
    > and that lack of enforcement didn't seem to stop people from creating all sorts of artistic and literary and musical works, great in quantity and quality alike. It's why several of Shakespeare's plays are missing, and others are only available in modified form. Since there was no exclusive right of performance, playwrights (and other similar creatives) had to keep their works close to their chest. Copyright does exist for a legitimate reason. The biggest problems with copyright today, are: • it's far, far, far too long; and • corporate gatekeeping allows nigh-monopolistic corporations to take authors' copyrights from them, meaning copyright law doesn't protect authors at all! (Rebecca Giblin and Cory Doctorow discuss the latter in their book Chokepoint Capitalism, which I haven't read yet.) > The more the megacorporations backtrack on their copyright absolutism and admit that ignoring copyright expedites creative work, the more ammunition the rest of us have against their continued insistence on copyright absolutism. I'd love it if it worked that way. I hope you're right – but I believe you're wrong. We can let them do this backtracking without letting copyright law tilt even further in their favour.
    - yellowapple 4y ago

wizzwizz4 4y ago

> This is quite literally how most of the Old and New Testaments came into existence. That happened a few (thousand) weeks before copyright law was invented. > The authors of Matthew and Luke certainly didn't bother mentioning that they copied a bunch of stuff from Mark and whatever the Q source is (my bet is on either the Gospel of Thomas or some source thereof). Nor did the authors of Leviticus and such mention how they ripped large swaths of what's now known as Mosaic Law straight from Hittite laws and the Code of Hammurabi. The Q source (two-source hypothesis and four-source hypothesis both) is speculative, and there are several reasons to criticise the theory – such as lack of corroborating historical evidence that the Q source ever existed as a separate document. That aside, Leviticus likely got its Hittite and Hammurabi influences via Mosaic Law, not (primarily) the other way around. (Legal systems influence other legal systems? Who knew‽) Merely saying the same thing isn't protected by modern copyright; facts are not copyrightable. (There is such a thing as "database rights", but that doesn't really come into play, here.) > These works are nonetheless considered pretty transformative. The merits of our current copyright regime aren't terribly relevant, here. If you want to change the law, change the law; don't try to have the existing law interpreted differently in select cases, especially if you're only doing that where it benefits already-powerful entities like Disney or Microsoft.

yellowapple 4y ago
> don't try to have the existing law interpreted differently in select cases, especially if you're only doing that where it benefits already-powerful entities like Disney or Microsoft. Who says it only benefits the already-powerful entities, or that it even benefits them at all in the long run? As evident from my other comments on this topic, my hope (and indeed expectation) is that they'll shoot themselves in the foot and be hoisted by their own copyright-infringing petard. It wasn't that long ago when copyright enforcement wasn't a thing, and that lack of enforcement didn't seem to stop people from creating all sorts of artistic and literary and musical works, great in quantity and quality alike. The more the megacorporations backtrack on their copyright absolutism and admit that ignoring copyright expedites creative work, the more ammunition the rest of us have against their continued insistence on copyright absolutism. Put simply: Copilot sets a precedent that I suspect will lead to the downfall of intellectual property law entirely. Probably not alone, but very likely one of several dominoes toppling toward that end result.
- wizzwizz4 4y ago
  > and that lack of enforcement didn't seem to stop people from creating all sorts of artistic and literary and musical works, great in quantity and quality alike. It's why several of Shakespeare's plays are missing, and others are only available in modified form. Since there was no exclusive right of performance, playwrights (and other similar creatives) had to keep their works close to their chest. Copyright does exist for a legitimate reason. The biggest problems with copyright today, are: • it's far, far, far too long; and • corporate gatekeeping allows nigh-monopolistic corporations to take authors' copyrights from them, meaning copyright law doesn't protect authors at all! (Rebecca Giblin and Cory Doctorow discuss the latter in their book Chokepoint Capitalism, which I haven't read yet.) > The more the megacorporations backtrack on their copyright absolutism and admit that ignoring copyright expedites creative work, the more ammunition the rest of us have against their continued insistence on copyright absolutism. I'd love it if it worked that way. I hope you're right – but I believe you're wrong. We can let them do this backtracking without letting copyright law tilt even further in their favour.
  - yellowapple 4y ago