14 ms·

"Intellectual property rights" is a concept made by greedy proprietors to build monopolies and keep competition out. It's no chance it was strongly pushed by Di

"Intellectual property rights" is a concept made by greedy proprietors to build monopolies and keep competition out. It's no chance it was strongly pushed by Disney, and in its current form goes against the society interests as a whole. It is sold maliciously as "it incentivizes creative work", but how does "life of the author + 50 years" incentivize the author to keep creating? It just incentivizes them to keep exploiting. Now I think we'd all agree to something more realistic to actually protect authors, like 10-30 years protection from publication. But every time someone brings "copyright! IP!" to ML I just laugh since it's one of the more corrupt laws that we have currently.

wuqs 4y ago
excuse me sir, are you blind by silicon? greedy is to train ML models on copyrighted data of hundreds of thousands of people with far beyond the amount of power Disney have! also how many people are responsible for stuff like ChatGPT... 300? getting the bulky of their trainning data from, again, who? it feels the monopoly history is re-inventing itself, now with fancy computers replicating human behaviour
- stale2002 4y ago
  That sounds horrible. I guess the only solution is to get rid of copyright law so people don't exploit it so much. Problem solved. Let's all stop protecting this, and allow anyone to innovate by making cool and new awesome things.
  - thrown123098 4y ago
    Sounds great, and when someone leaks the model online I can make a product on top of it without paying anyone.
    - Dalewyn 4y ago
      What goes around comes around.
    - solarmist 4y ago
      No it doesn't. Capital will always have workarounds. How about Make the model so big you can only run it in a data center?
      - thrown123098 4y ago
        Great I can run it on my bonnet.
    - PoignardAzur 4y ago
      That unironically sounds great.
jollofricepeas 4y ago
I disagree completely. My older brother decided to go to art school. It wasn’t until he was 40 that his artwork started to be noticed and worth something. His images have been bootlegged endlessly by Asian companies placing them on t-shirts and selling them for $5 on Etsy and every other marketplace. Fortunately for him, he’s designed a very popular set of kids books that have allowed him to move out of my parents, get a place of his own, pay down debt and buy a house. Intellectual property is how he takes care of his family. He should be able to at least provide for his kids college after his death if his IP still has value in the marketplace. …And so should other creators. Not everyone is Disney.
- franciscop 4y ago
  I think we mostly agree here, since for your brother those 10-30 years would work perfectly for him! China breaking copyright is NOT an argument that copyright is good, quite the opposite, it's a statement of how broken it is. About the inheritance I disagree, when you are a farmer and sell a potato you sell it once and then it's gone, if you are a carpenter you make a furniture piece and sell it and its gone. Why should art be a "legacy" that can be kept selling forever?
  - will_walker 4y ago
    To incentivize artists to create and distribute art. The way we conceive of art as an act of embodied novelty differentiates it from commodities which aim for predictable consistency. Lack of IP protection in our culture has made it impossible for 99.9% of artists to thrive economically. The US has chosen relative cultural poverty compared to other cultures that find non-market mechanisms to support artists. As an artist starting out in the beginning of my career, I made a rationalized choice to never post my work online - in retrospect this seems to have been the right choice. My work is no AI’s whetstone.
    - solarmist 4y ago
      Artist have always since classical times struggled to support themselves. I don’t think there is any system that would make this a viable career for the number of people who want to pursue it. Same with musicians. It is a luxury career supported exclusively by surplus. There will always be demand for it, but it is highly elastic and heavily influenced by trends and skewed by the top end.
HWR_14 4y ago
> Intellectual property rights" is a concept made by greedy proprietors to build monopolies and keep competition out Which is why all AI code and datasets are freely available and legally usable by anyone for any purpose?
UberFly 4y ago
"Intellectual property rights is a concept made by greedy proprietors to build monopolies..." If you had created anything other than internet forum opinions in your life you'd have a different perspective.
- 331c8c71 4y ago
  It's a bullshit umbrella term anyway. There's copyright and there are patents/trade secrets. + trademarks. Ain't no "property"
- sam_lowry_ 4y ago
  It is no secret that the majority of creators get close to nothing out of their copyrighted works.
- Eisenstein 4y ago
  Do you often ascribe incompetency or stupidity to people who disagree with you? If so, you should stop because it doesn't help your argument -- it makes you sound like a dismissive egoist who doesn't believe anyone who doesn't share the same values is qualified to have an opinion. It might make you feel better about your own stances but it certainly doesn't make others not inclined to a elitist disposition take you seriously.
  - lukebitts 4y ago
    Did you really explain the concept of an insult to them? Do you really believe they did it without knowing what they were doing?
    - Eisenstein 4y ago
      > Did you really explain the concept of an insult to them? Yes. > Do you really believe they did it without knowing what they were doing? Of course not, but I also believe they thought it would be more effective at making their point than it was. It is tough to respond to something that is crass and meant to be offensive without resorting to the same, so by using the 'annoyed teacher' style I can get my point across without crossing the line to snark or contemptuousness.
zirgs 4y ago
The Mickey Mouse protection act actually extends copyright to more than 90 years after publication. It was imposed upon the rest of the world unilaterally. And only few big corporations like Disney benefit from it.
- franciscop 4y ago
  True, didn't want to go into detail (multiple extensions) so just quoted the original.
Juliate 4y ago
It’s a concept at least as old as modern democracies and individual rights, and it’s likely not a coincidence. That it’s been abused by corporate entities is another matter. The fact that some famous musicians sell their whole catalog to companies is also a sign of times changing again. AI growth as it is here based on preexisting work is directly in confrontation with copyright. And something will have to give in some way. But law will likely not catch up before at least another 10 years, the time needed for most people to really understand/experience the impact of the changes.
- franciscop 4y ago
  Not really, musicians used to copy, adapt, or mock other musicians music in the middle ages from what I've read, a famous example was Mozart transcribing the Vatican "secret" song. Same with art, painters have always learned by imitation. History is full of "copyright infringements" (if you look at it with a modern glass), either benevolent of apprentice learning from their masters or adversarial copying the competition.
  - Juliate 4y ago
    True. It more looks like a complement than an counterargument?
precompute 4y ago
IP laws are a double-edged sword because of the way how advertising and human memory works. You can not have IP laws and also negligible impact on culture. You always get both, and people replicate what they know. The goal of IP (like many other things) is to eradicate itself.
jstarfish 4y ago
> how does "life of the author + 50 years" incentivize the author to keep creating? It just incentivizes them to keep exploiting. It is a necessary protection against moral hazard, and a way for artists who may well be poor during their lifetime to be able to leave something behind for their children. In your world, if one wants to print Calvin-peeing-on-things t-shirts without having to deal with legal hurdles, all they'd have to do is shove Bill Watterson into traffic to force his creations into the public domain. There is no point to creating anything if someone else can throw you under an actual bus to immediately claim rights to (and start profiting from) the years of time and effort you spent building the "brand." Forcing a delay of 50 years goes a long way toward discouraging this sort of literal piracy. This is the premise of the current AI debate, only it's forgery at scale instead of manslaughter.

wuqs 4y ago

excuse me sir, are you blind by silicon? greedy is to train ML models on copyrighted data of hundreds of thousands of people with far beyond the amount of power Disney have! also how many people are responsible for stuff like ChatGPT... 300? getting the bulky of their trainning data from, again, who? it feels the monopoly history is re-inventing itself, now with fancy computers replicating human behaviour

stale2002 4y ago
That sounds horrible. I guess the only solution is to get rid of copyright law so people don't exploit it so much. Problem solved. Let's all stop protecting this, and allow anyone to innovate by making cool and new awesome things.
- thrown123098 4y ago
  Sounds great, and when someone leaks the model online I can make a product on top of it without paying anyone.
  - Dalewyn 4y ago
    What goes around comes around.
  - solarmist 4y ago
    No it doesn't. Capital will always have workarounds. How about Make the model so big you can only run it in a data center?
    - thrown123098 4y ago
      Great I can run it on my bonnet.
  - PoignardAzur 4y ago
    That unironically sounds great.

jollofricepeas 4y ago

I disagree completely. My older brother decided to go to art school. It wasn’t until he was 40 that his artwork started to be noticed and worth something. His images have been bootlegged endlessly by Asian companies placing them on t-shirts and selling them for $5 on Etsy and every other marketplace. Fortunately for him, he’s designed a very popular set of kids books that have allowed him to move out of my parents, get a place of his own, pay down debt and buy a house. Intellectual property is how he takes care of his family. He should be able to at least provide for his kids college after his death if his IP still has value in the marketplace. …And so should other creators. Not everyone is Disney.

franciscop 4y ago
I think we mostly agree here, since for your brother those 10-30 years would work perfectly for him! China breaking copyright is NOT an argument that copyright is good, quite the opposite, it's a statement of how broken it is. About the inheritance I disagree, when you are a farmer and sell a potato you sell it once and then it's gone, if you are a carpenter you make a furniture piece and sell it and its gone. Why should art be a "legacy" that can be kept selling forever?
- will_walker 4y ago
  To incentivize artists to create and distribute art. The way we conceive of art as an act of embodied novelty differentiates it from commodities which aim for predictable consistency. Lack of IP protection in our culture has made it impossible for 99.9% of artists to thrive economically. The US has chosen relative cultural poverty compared to other cultures that find non-market mechanisms to support artists. As an artist starting out in the beginning of my career, I made a rationalized choice to never post my work online - in retrospect this seems to have been the right choice. My work is no AI’s whetstone.
  - solarmist 4y ago
    Artist have always since classical times struggled to support themselves. I don’t think there is any system that would make this a viable career for the number of people who want to pursue it. Same with musicians. It is a luxury career supported exclusively by surplus. There will always be demand for it, but it is highly elastic and heavily influenced by trends and skewed by the top end.

HWR_14 4y ago

> Intellectual property rights" is a concept made by greedy proprietors to build monopolies and keep competition out Which is why all AI code and datasets are freely available and legally usable by anyone for any purpose?

UberFly 4y ago

"Intellectual property rights is a concept made by greedy proprietors to build monopolies..." If you had created anything other than internet forum opinions in your life you'd have a different perspective.

331c8c71 4y ago
It's a bullshit umbrella term anyway. There's copyright and there are patents/trade secrets. + trademarks. Ain't no "property"
sam_lowry_ 4y ago
It is no secret that the majority of creators get close to nothing out of their copyrighted works.
Eisenstein 4y ago
Do you often ascribe incompetency or stupidity to people who disagree with you? If so, you should stop because it doesn't help your argument -- it makes you sound like a dismissive egoist who doesn't believe anyone who doesn't share the same values is qualified to have an opinion. It might make you feel better about your own stances but it certainly doesn't make others not inclined to a elitist disposition take you seriously.
- lukebitts 4y ago
  Did you really explain the concept of an insult to them? Do you really believe they did it without knowing what they were doing?
  - Eisenstein 4y ago
    > Did you really explain the concept of an insult to them? Yes. > Do you really believe they did it without knowing what they were doing? Of course not, but I also believe they thought it would be more effective at making their point than it was. It is tough to respond to something that is crass and meant to be offensive without resorting to the same, so by using the 'annoyed teacher' style I can get my point across without crossing the line to snark or contemptuousness.

zirgs 4y ago

The Mickey Mouse protection act actually extends copyright to more than 90 years after publication. It was imposed upon the rest of the world unilaterally. And only few big corporations like Disney benefit from it.

franciscop 4y ago
True, didn't want to go into detail (multiple extensions) so just quoted the original.

Juliate 4y ago

It’s a concept at least as old as modern democracies and individual rights, and it’s likely not a coincidence. That it’s been abused by corporate entities is another matter. The fact that some famous musicians sell their whole catalog to companies is also a sign of times changing again. AI growth as it is here based on preexisting work is directly in confrontation with copyright. And something will have to give in some way. But law will likely not catch up before at least another 10 years, the time needed for most people to really understand/experience the impact of the changes.

franciscop 4y ago
Not really, musicians used to copy, adapt, or mock other musicians music in the middle ages from what I've read, a famous example was Mozart transcribing the Vatican "secret" song. Same with art, painters have always learned by imitation. History is full of "copyright infringements" (if you look at it with a modern glass), either benevolent of apprentice learning from their masters or adversarial copying the competition.
- Juliate 4y ago
  True. It more looks like a complement than an counterargument?

precompute 4y ago

IP laws are a double-edged sword because of the way how advertising and human memory works. You can not have IP laws and also negligible impact on culture. You always get both, and people replicate what they know. The goal of IP (like many other things) is to eradicate itself.

jstarfish 4y ago

> how does "life of the author + 50 years" incentivize the author to keep creating? It just incentivizes them to keep exploiting. It is a necessary protection against moral hazard, and a way for artists who may well be poor during their lifetime to be able to leave something behind for their children. In your world, if one wants to print Calvin-peeing-on-things t-shirts without having to deal with legal hurdles, all they'd have to do is shove Bill Watterson into traffic to force his creations into the public domain. There is no point to creating anything if someone else can throw you under an actual bus to immediately claim rights to (and start profiting from) the years of time and effort you spent building the "brand." Forcing a delay of 50 years goes a long way toward discouraging this sort of literal piracy. This is the premise of the current AI debate, only it's forgery at scale instead of manslaughter.