5 ms·

Modern copyright is not a good, it's an evil.

Andrex 3y ago
That depends on the jurisdiction, but in my view I err on the side of "but it's necessary." A society without copyright would be a much poorer one, and humans figured that out a long time ago.
- nightski 3y ago
  I don't think you can look to the past to picture a future with AI.
- CamperBob2 3y ago
  A society without copyright would be a much poorer one That was before "Attention Is All You Need" and the subsequent work on LLMs that grew out of it. Things are different now.
threeseed 3y ago
Authors, artists, actors etc whose work have been ripped off by mega corporations like Meta, OpenAI, Google etc would disagree. Copyright may need to be updated to cater for the new world of AI but that doesn't mean as a concept it is evil.
- murki 3y ago
  How are Modern Copyright laws helping authors, artists, and actors in those cases?
  - threeseed 3y ago
    It's allowing them to sue OpenAI for copyright infringement: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/jul/05/authors-file-a-lawsuit-against-openai-for-unlawfully-ingesting-their-books https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/jul/05/authors-file-a...
    - ronsor 3y ago
      It's worth noting you can sue for just about anything, but a case could end up being dismissed or you could simply lose it.
    - CamperBob2 3y ago
      Allowing them to block human intellectual progress may not be the long-term win you assume it is.
      - threeseed 3y ago
        And some would argue that billion dollar companies like OpenAI, Meta etc should figure out a way to compensate the people who created the content they depend on.
        CamperBob2 3y ago
        Making the uncensored, unbiased, un-"aligned" results available to all for a fair price is compensation enough, I think. That's what we should be pushing for. Whether demon or genie, any notion of putting this tech back in the bottle is a non-starter. As is turning it into a giant money grab for the copyright industry.
    - smoldesu 3y ago
      That hasn't protected copywritten works in the past: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors_Guild,_Inc._v._Google,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors_Guild,_Inc._v._Google,....
__loam 3y ago
People should be paid for their labor.
- smoldesu 3y ago
  Then they shouldn't give away their work for free.
  - __loam 3y ago
    They're not. They have a copyright. Practicing artists usually benefit professionally from maintaining a public portfolio. Data being public is also notably not a license to use it for whatever purpose you want. Have some respect.
    - smoldesu 3y ago
      I have a copyleft, for all the good it does my work. Copyright protects artists from nothing, and leaving it uncontested harms the consumer more than the artists. > Data being public is also notably not a license to use it for whatever purpose you want. Under the Fair Use doctrine, it very well could be. It was when Google indexed every book they could buy, to the disdain of the Author's Guild and the titleholders they represented. > Have some respect. I will not respect an authority that forces me to rent digital content.
      - hmcq6 3y ago
        > I will not respect an authority that forces me to rent digital content. They are very obviously asking you to respect the individual artists.

That depends on the jurisdiction, but in my view I err on the side of "but it's necessary." A society without copyright would be a much poorer one, and humans figured that out a long time ago.

nightski 3y ago
I don't think you can look to the past to picture a future with AI.
CamperBob2 3y ago
A society without copyright would be a much poorer one That was before "Attention Is All You Need" and the subsequent work on LLMs that grew out of it. Things are different now.

threeseed 3y ago

Authors, artists, actors etc whose work have been ripped off by mega corporations like Meta, OpenAI, Google etc would disagree. Copyright may need to be updated to cater for the new world of AI but that doesn't mean as a concept it is evil.

murki 3y ago
How are Modern Copyright laws helping authors, artists, and actors in those cases?
- threeseed 3y ago
  It's allowing them to sue OpenAI for copyright infringement: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/jul/05/authors-file-a-lawsuit-against-openai-for-unlawfully-ingesting-their-books https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/jul/05/authors-file-a...
  - ronsor 3y ago
    It's worth noting you can sue for just about anything, but a case could end up being dismissed or you could simply lose it.
  - CamperBob2 3y ago
    Allowing them to block human intellectual progress may not be the long-term win you assume it is.
    - threeseed 3y ago
      And some would argue that billion dollar companies like OpenAI, Meta etc should figure out a way to compensate the people who created the content they depend on.
      - CamperBob2 3y ago
        Making the uncensored, unbiased, un-"aligned" results available to all for a fair price is compensation enough, I think. That's what we should be pushing for. Whether demon or genie, any notion of putting this tech back in the bottle is a non-starter. As is turning it into a giant money grab for the copyright industry.
  - smoldesu 3y ago
    That hasn't protected copywritten works in the past: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors_Guild,_Inc._v._Google,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors_Guild,_Inc._v._Google,....

__loam 3y ago

People should be paid for their labor.

smoldesu 3y ago
Then they shouldn't give away their work for free.
- __loam 3y ago
  They're not. They have a copyright. Practicing artists usually benefit professionally from maintaining a public portfolio. Data being public is also notably not a license to use it for whatever purpose you want. Have some respect.
  - smoldesu 3y ago
    I have a copyleft, for all the good it does my work. Copyright protects artists from nothing, and leaving it uncontested harms the consumer more than the artists. > Data being public is also notably not a license to use it for whatever purpose you want. Under the Fair Use doctrine, it very well could be. It was when Google indexed every book they could buy, to the disdain of the Author's Guild and the titleholders they represented. > Have some respect. I will not respect an authority that forces me to rent digital content.
    - hmcq6 3y ago
      > I will not respect an authority that forces me to rent digital content. They are very obviously asking you to respect the individual artists.