3 ms·

Intellectual property in the way of progress, again.

qayxc 3y ago
In this case I don't think it is. There are legal questions that simply have to be asked and discussed before proceeding mass adoption of generative models. Lawsuits like this are tests to evaluate the current state of affairs and to force legislation into dealing with the greater issue of AI in context of copyright, IP, and fair use. It would only be "in the way" if it would actually stop or hinder anything, which a lawsuit on its own isn't.
23B1 3y ago
Progress for whom?
- em3rgent0rdr 3y ago
  Society. Regular people.
  - 23B1 3y ago
    How so?
    - em3rgent0rdr 3y ago
      Intellectual property monopolies limit access and utilization of ideas and tools to broader society in exchange for privileging a small group worshipped as "the creators".
      - 23B1 3y ago
        That sounds like a good argument, but I'm not seeing how protecting a comedian's IP translates to limiting access to ideas and tools... that benefit broader society.
        salawat 3y ago
        The same thing that protects that comedian's IP, is the same thing that makes the source designs for lithographic masks for semiconductor fabrication some of the most sensitive IP in the world! Who it is making the claim doesn't matter half as much as what the knock on consequences to jurisprudence at large.
        23B1 3y ago
        It does matter who is making the claim because - I think you'd agree – there needs to be some reformation of IP law. But I'll never support anything that says a comedian can't protect her book.
    - gaganyaan 3y ago
      The same way Disney borrowed heavily from the public domain only to shut the door after themselves and lock it up for decades. We as a people benefit from not having gatekeepers lock up our cultural heritage in the name of fetishing money. We are nearing a point where copyright will be ignored and the gatekeepers left fuming and unable to extract rent anymore.
      - 23B1 3y ago
        Trying to see the deleterious social effects of not having free access to Disney IP. Not Gish-galloping you, I just don't think of Disney IP as having high social utility in the grand scheme of things. I assume you'd have a better case with IP on medicines for example, but I can also see the benefits of, say, Pharma companies being able to turn some profit in order to develop other socially useful therapies...
        gaganyaan 3y ago
        > not having free access to Disney IP You've got this wrong. Rephrase it like this: > allowing Disney to enforce artificial scarcity with threats of state-enforced violence You might not like Disney stuff, but it's absurd that Winnie the Pooh for example just partially entered the public domain. Tigger is still locked up in a greed vault. You being dismissive of the cultural value is a cold comfort to the daycare that got sued over a Winnie the Pooh mural.
        23B1 3y ago
        I don't think a daycare should be sued for a Winnie the Pooh mural. But I also don't think a Winnie the Pooh mural has much inherent value anyway, especially to the kids it ostensibly was for. I can think of a million better things for mural-painters and Disney lawyers to do – but I don't think it requires the elimination of IP protections.

In this case I don't think it is. There are legal questions that simply have to be asked and discussed before proceeding mass adoption of generative models. Lawsuits like this are tests to evaluate the current state of affairs and to force legislation into dealing with the greater issue of AI in context of copyright, IP, and fair use. It would only be "in the way" if it would actually stop or hinder anything, which a lawsuit on its own isn't.

23B1 3y ago

Progress for whom?

em3rgent0rdr 3y ago
Society. Regular people.
- 23B1 3y ago
  How so?
  - em3rgent0rdr 3y ago
    Intellectual property monopolies limit access and utilization of ideas and tools to broader society in exchange for privileging a small group worshipped as "the creators".
    - 23B1 3y ago
      That sounds like a good argument, but I'm not seeing how protecting a comedian's IP translates to limiting access to ideas and tools... that benefit broader society.
      - salawat 3y ago
        The same thing that protects that comedian's IP, is the same thing that makes the source designs for lithographic masks for semiconductor fabrication some of the most sensitive IP in the world! Who it is making the claim doesn't matter half as much as what the knock on consequences to jurisprudence at large.
        23B1 3y ago
        It does matter who is making the claim because - I think you'd agree – there needs to be some reformation of IP law. But I'll never support anything that says a comedian can't protect her book.
  - gaganyaan 3y ago
    The same way Disney borrowed heavily from the public domain only to shut the door after themselves and lock it up for decades. We as a people benefit from not having gatekeepers lock up our cultural heritage in the name of fetishing money. We are nearing a point where copyright will be ignored and the gatekeepers left fuming and unable to extract rent anymore.
    - 23B1 3y ago
      Trying to see the deleterious social effects of not having free access to Disney IP. Not Gish-galloping you, I just don't think of Disney IP as having high social utility in the grand scheme of things. I assume you'd have a better case with IP on medicines for example, but I can also see the benefits of, say, Pharma companies being able to turn some profit in order to develop other socially useful therapies...
      - gaganyaan 3y ago
        > not having free access to Disney IP You've got this wrong. Rephrase it like this: > allowing Disney to enforce artificial scarcity with threats of state-enforced violence You might not like Disney stuff, but it's absurd that Winnie the Pooh for example just partially entered the public domain. Tigger is still locked up in a greed vault. You being dismissive of the cultural value is a cold comfort to the daycare that got sued over a Winnie the Pooh mural.
        23B1 3y ago
        I don't think a daycare should be sued for a Winnie the Pooh mural. But I also don't think a Winnie the Pooh mural has much inherent value anyway, especially to the kids it ostensibly was for. I can think of a million better things for mural-painters and Disney lawyers to do – but I don't think it requires the elimination of IP protections.