4 ms·

> For some incomprehensible reasons, people seem to accept "mixing A and B is not a new idea because A and B already exist." Like... why? In copyright-law (and

> For some incomprehensible reasons, people seem to accept "mixing A and B is not a new idea because A and B already exist." Like... why? In copyright-law (and I think patents?), there is the Threshold of originality. Basically you evaluate how much work and change went into something, to distinguish it from other works. Which IMHO comes down to how much of a and b can you still see in the mix, and how much did mixing them changed them in the end product. If the change is low, then people more likely consider it as not innovative. Or how Homer Simpson once said: “People are afraid of new things. You should have taken an existing product and put a clock in it or something.”

freejazz 4y ago
Copyrights don't protect novelty. Two people can independently create the same thing and both be entitled to copyright. You cannot do that in patent. Only one is an invention in the eyes of the law. The threshold for originality in copyright is the bare minimum, so it's not a good standard for "invention". Patents have a much higher bar to overcome, and it is hard to put into a simple explanatory phrase. I think what you are describing in copyright isn't the issue of originality, but determining what is encompassed in a copyrighted work. The court will analyze what the work consists of, and what of it was your expression, as opposed to someone else's. So, it's not novelty exactly but it's close.
- PurpleRamen 4y ago
  > Copyrights don't protect novelty. Yes, and no. I can't speak for laws in the USA, as I'm from Europe. But Copyright-laws in the EU do have parts which specifically target mixing and mashups of content, and how much new content of your you need to add to make it count as a separate work. These parts were recently updated, because of YouTube, the meme-culture and so on. But it's my understanding that for music and text-quotes, the whole concept is already longer around. So I guess US-Laws do have something like this too? So of course, this does not handle novelty on a global scale for all of mankind's knowledge and content, but the general Idea and how to handle it is there. > Two people can independently create the same thing and both be entitled to copyright. Similar maybe. But for literally the same, I doubt it. People are getting already sued for having too much similarity.
  - freejazz 4y ago
    My point is more that, in the way the law works out, what you get to protect is the part of an expression that is unique to you, which can include mashups, etc. My point being that this is perhaps distinct from novelty, as novelty isn't a requirement of copyright, just independent creation. >Similar maybe. But for literally the same, I doubt it. People are getting already sued for having too much similarity. Full stop yes. Independent creation of the same thing is not an issue in copyright law in the US. I do not speak about Euro copyright, as I'm merely a US atty. In US copyright law, a necessary element of infringement is access to the allegedly copied work - if access to the work is rebutted, then there is no copying and no infringement. The copyright stands.
soco 4y ago
Copyright laws are a tool, not a reason by itself. They are aimed to give money to inventors, not to judge innovation. You can argue they do judge in order to accomplish their aim, but that's the byproduct, not the aim. So let's not give the laws more meaning and usage than they deserve.
- originalcopying 4y ago
  on similar (I think) line of thought, but further along, the reason to have property (also a tool, or social-technology to be slightly more precise), i.e. ownership over things is a byproduct of having a marketplace in which we can trade. In this view, the marketplace (or trade, depending on your outlook) is THE WAY to come together and put all our skills together in order to co-create (con-struct) something much larger. Alas, capitalism means that only a very few chosen elites (which are, by this point, mostly autonomous corporations) get to decide what we all work together to co-create. We as human individuals are only able to participate in this figurative "marketplace" (understood as a social-technology) as the part of merchandise, specifically as 'commodity'-style labor.
  - SuoDuanDao 4y ago
    Do you have an alternative to suggest? Under most of human history the chosen elites inherited their positions from an ancestor who won an important war. Capitalism may not be an even playing field but the process that lets Elon Musk build landing Rockets is an order of magnitude more even than the process that let Kuresh build pyramids. Is there a model that might be more even still?
    - originalcopying 4y ago
      nevermind
      - __MatrixMan__ 4y ago
        Totally agree. The idea that ideas/bits can be owned is a slippery slope with bad policy at the bottom. Maybe it was once necessary as a sort of training wheels for innovation, but it has long since become more of a drag than it's worth.
sandworm101 4y ago
>> Basically you evaluate how much work and change went into something, to distinguish it from other works. Copyright exemptions (fair use/fair dealing etc) are a million times more complex than that. There are times when one adds almost nothing yet will still get protection. Take political humor. A standard bit is just to point out something funny. Look at how often political comics (John oliver/stewart etc) just play a clip of some politician. No edits. No commentary. The clip speaks for itself. That is still protected speech. Understanding how the comic adds to the clip cannot be expressed in numbers.
- freejazz 4y ago
  You are confusing the "copying" analysis element of infringement, with the affirmative defense of fair use. They are not related. A necessary element of proving infringement is showing what was copied, which most likely requires the court to construe exactly what is covered under a given copyright.
- LordDragonfang 4y ago
  I mean, if the examples are to be believed, GPT4 seems to be able to explain what's funny about a given image. It's not out of the question that it or some future iteration could reduce that very thing to a discrete set of numeric scores.

freejazz 4y ago

Copyrights don't protect novelty. Two people can independently create the same thing and both be entitled to copyright. You cannot do that in patent. Only one is an invention in the eyes of the law. The threshold for originality in copyright is the bare minimum, so it's not a good standard for "invention". Patents have a much higher bar to overcome, and it is hard to put into a simple explanatory phrase. I think what you are describing in copyright isn't the issue of originality, but determining what is encompassed in a copyrighted work. The court will analyze what the work consists of, and what of it was your expression, as opposed to someone else's. So, it's not novelty exactly but it's close.

PurpleRamen 4y ago
> Copyrights don't protect novelty. Yes, and no. I can't speak for laws in the USA, as I'm from Europe. But Copyright-laws in the EU do have parts which specifically target mixing and mashups of content, and how much new content of your you need to add to make it count as a separate work. These parts were recently updated, because of YouTube, the meme-culture and so on. But it's my understanding that for music and text-quotes, the whole concept is already longer around. So I guess US-Laws do have something like this too? So of course, this does not handle novelty on a global scale for all of mankind's knowledge and content, but the general Idea and how to handle it is there. > Two people can independently create the same thing and both be entitled to copyright. Similar maybe. But for literally the same, I doubt it. People are getting already sued for having too much similarity.
- freejazz 4y ago
  My point is more that, in the way the law works out, what you get to protect is the part of an expression that is unique to you, which can include mashups, etc. My point being that this is perhaps distinct from novelty, as novelty isn't a requirement of copyright, just independent creation. >Similar maybe. But for literally the same, I doubt it. People are getting already sued for having too much similarity. Full stop yes. Independent creation of the same thing is not an issue in copyright law in the US. I do not speak about Euro copyright, as I'm merely a US atty. In US copyright law, a necessary element of infringement is access to the allegedly copied work - if access to the work is rebutted, then there is no copying and no infringement. The copyright stands.

soco 4y ago

Copyright laws are a tool, not a reason by itself. They are aimed to give money to inventors, not to judge innovation. You can argue they do judge in order to accomplish their aim, but that's the byproduct, not the aim. So let's not give the laws more meaning and usage than they deserve.

originalcopying 4y ago
on similar (I think) line of thought, but further along, the reason to have property (also a tool, or social-technology to be slightly more precise), i.e. ownership over things is a byproduct of having a marketplace in which we can trade. In this view, the marketplace (or trade, depending on your outlook) is THE WAY to come together and put all our skills together in order to co-create (con-struct) something much larger. Alas, capitalism means that only a very few chosen elites (which are, by this point, mostly autonomous corporations) get to decide what we all work together to co-create. We as human individuals are only able to participate in this figurative "marketplace" (understood as a social-technology) as the part of merchandise, specifically as 'commodity'-style labor.
- SuoDuanDao 4y ago
  Do you have an alternative to suggest? Under most of human history the chosen elites inherited their positions from an ancestor who won an important war. Capitalism may not be an even playing field but the process that lets Elon Musk build landing Rockets is an order of magnitude more even than the process that let Kuresh build pyramids. Is there a model that might be more even still?
  - originalcopying 4y ago
    nevermind
    - __MatrixMan__ 4y ago
      Totally agree. The idea that ideas/bits can be owned is a slippery slope with bad policy at the bottom. Maybe it was once necessary as a sort of training wheels for innovation, but it has long since become more of a drag than it's worth.

sandworm101 4y ago

>> Basically you evaluate how much work and change went into something, to distinguish it from other works. Copyright exemptions (fair use/fair dealing etc) are a million times more complex than that. There are times when one adds almost nothing yet will still get protection. Take political humor. A standard bit is just to point out something funny. Look at how often political comics (John oliver/stewart etc) just play a clip of some politician. No edits. No commentary. The clip speaks for itself. That is still protected speech. Understanding how the comic adds to the clip cannot be expressed in numbers.

freejazz 4y ago
You are confusing the "copying" analysis element of infringement, with the affirmative defense of fair use. They are not related. A necessary element of proving infringement is showing what was copied, which most likely requires the court to construe exactly what is covered under a given copyright.
LordDragonfang 4y ago
I mean, if the examples are to be believed, GPT4 seems to be able to explain what's funny about a given image. It's not out of the question that it or some future iteration could reduce that very thing to a discrete set of numeric scores.