4 ms·

I have two young children and while I was conversing with you I was cooking them dinner and getting them ready for bed. Otherwise I would have done the bare mi

I have two young children and while I was conversing with you I was cooking them dinner and getting them ready for bed. Otherwise I would have done the bare minimum of reading the Wikipedia entry on the book. All I did was Google for “Harry Potter knockoff”, saw that the book was on Amazon, and thought that was enough. Reading the Wikipedia article it is clear that this series took much more than just the idea of a wizardry school and copied verbatim plot elements. It was not the right example to use. Here’s what I mean by style. Reggae music. How different is one reggae song from another? What about when a reggae musician sells the rights to one song and then write another song in their own style? Are they infringing on the previous work they just sold to a music publisher? Here’s what happened when John Fogerty was sued for sounding like John Fogerty: https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/27501/time-john-fogerty-was-sued-ripping-john-fogerty https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/27501/time-john-fogerty-... This logic seemed pretty sound to the jury. It only took two hours of deliberation for the jury to determine that the two songs didn’t meet the legal standard of being “substantially similar” that would have constituted copyright infringement. The Fogerty camp let out a collective “huzzah!”

Retric 3y ago
Winning here doesn’t actually mean style across all art is safe just safe in that specific instance: The case was litigated rather than being thrown out because style is legally recognized as falling under copyright. “In 1993 the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit shot down that appeal, though, on the same grounds—the original suit had been neither frivolous nor brought in bad faith.” The Supreme Court didn’t disagree, they ruled on a different matter.
- williamcotton 3y ago
  Ok, so then back at you: That Ms. Rowling and her publisher won doesn’t mean that style is covered by copyright either. It could just mean they had a more expensive legal team. One of the key elements of copyright is this doctrine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea%E2%80%93expression_distinction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea%E2%80%93expression_distin... An adventure novel provides an illustration of the concept. Copyright may subsist in the work as a whole, in the particular story or characters involved, or in any artwork contained in the book, but generally not in the idea or genre of the story. Also, let’s take a step back. What do you think is a fair outcome, that once John Fogerty sold the rights to one CCR song that he is no longer able to write music? Or that he needed to learn to write and play an entirely new genre? Does the first music publisher to buy a reggae song now own the rights to every single reggae song produced after? What are you arguing for?
  - Retric 3y ago
    I am not arguing for anything, just describing the system as it exists. > Or that he needed to learn to write and play an entirely new genre? As the court case you mentioned shows genre isn’t specific enough to be problematic. I can’t draw a clear line in the sand and say this is safe because ultimately that’s up to the courts to determine in each instance. But, it is important to understand the general areas that are risky. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharrell_Williams_v._Bridgeport_Music https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharrell_Williams_v._Bridgepor... Appellate Court Judge Jacqueline Nguyen wrote a dissenting opinion: “that the judgement allows for protection over musical style” That doesn’t mean “style” is enough to lose a copyright case, but shows such things are potentially problematic.
    - williamcotton 3y ago
      All it shows is that rights-holders with a large legal war chest can win specific cases. There is not a single musician or songwriter that I have met who wasn’t appalled by the Robin Thicke ruling. Luckily history didn’t repeat itself with Ed Sheeran. Here's a concise explanation of why this was a terrible ruling: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1COYitP8hI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1COYitP8hI If the entire music industry operated in such a manner it would suffocate creativity. I think what you’re really trying to do is win an argument that supports your opinions on LLMs. Generally speaking, the Robin Thicke case was an aberration. If it was the norm then the music industry would look incredibly different. As in, there wouldn’t be a music industry. We can go back and forth cherry-picking court cases or we can discuss the doctrines that courts are encouraged to follow, like the idea-expression distinction. An overwhelming number of copyright cases have been decided based on this doctrine! It is disingenuous to suggest otherwise!
      - Retric 3y ago
        I understand your perspective, but I think you’re still missing my point. Winning a court case isn’t safe, getting the court case thrown out before it needs to be litigated is. You really don’t want to be in a position where someone with deep pockets can make a reasonable argument for infringement. The question of LLM’s is really secondary. It’s likely they could win, but that in itself is very dangerous territory.

Retric 3y ago

Winning here doesn’t actually mean style across all art is safe just safe in that specific instance: The case was litigated rather than being thrown out because style is legally recognized as falling under copyright. “In 1993 the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit shot down that appeal, though, on the same grounds—the original suit had been neither frivolous nor brought in bad faith.” The Supreme Court didn’t disagree, they ruled on a different matter.

williamcotton 3y ago
Ok, so then back at you: That Ms. Rowling and her publisher won doesn’t mean that style is covered by copyright either. It could just mean they had a more expensive legal team. One of the key elements of copyright is this doctrine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea%E2%80%93expression_distinction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea%E2%80%93expression_distin... An adventure novel provides an illustration of the concept. Copyright may subsist in the work as a whole, in the particular story or characters involved, or in any artwork contained in the book, but generally not in the idea or genre of the story. Also, let’s take a step back. What do you think is a fair outcome, that once John Fogerty sold the rights to one CCR song that he is no longer able to write music? Or that he needed to learn to write and play an entirely new genre? Does the first music publisher to buy a reggae song now own the rights to every single reggae song produced after? What are you arguing for?
- Retric 3y ago
  I am not arguing for anything, just describing the system as it exists. > Or that he needed to learn to write and play an entirely new genre? As the court case you mentioned shows genre isn’t specific enough to be problematic. I can’t draw a clear line in the sand and say this is safe because ultimately that’s up to the courts to determine in each instance. But, it is important to understand the general areas that are risky. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharrell_Williams_v._Bridgeport_Music https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharrell_Williams_v._Bridgepor... Appellate Court Judge Jacqueline Nguyen wrote a dissenting opinion: “that the judgement allows for protection over musical style” That doesn’t mean “style” is enough to lose a copyright case, but shows such things are potentially problematic.
  - williamcotton 3y ago
    All it shows is that rights-holders with a large legal war chest can win specific cases. There is not a single musician or songwriter that I have met who wasn’t appalled by the Robin Thicke ruling. Luckily history didn’t repeat itself with Ed Sheeran. Here's a concise explanation of why this was a terrible ruling: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1COYitP8hI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1COYitP8hI If the entire music industry operated in such a manner it would suffocate creativity. I think what you’re really trying to do is win an argument that supports your opinions on LLMs. Generally speaking, the Robin Thicke case was an aberration. If it was the norm then the music industry would look incredibly different. As in, there wouldn’t be a music industry. We can go back and forth cherry-picking court cases or we can discuss the doctrines that courts are encouraged to follow, like the idea-expression distinction. An overwhelming number of copyright cases have been decided based on this doctrine! It is disingenuous to suggest otherwise!
    - Retric 3y ago
      I understand your perspective, but I think you’re still missing my point. Winning a court case isn’t safe, getting the court case thrown out before it needs to be litigated is. You really don’t want to be in a position where someone with deep pockets can make a reasonable argument for infringement. The question of LLM’s is really secondary. It’s likely they could win, but that in itself is very dangerous territory.