6 ms·

Intellectual property never really existed. Copyright is something we made up to extend the logic of commodities to the full value chain for books, which made

by treyd 3y ago

Intellectual property never really existed. Copyright is something we made up to extend the logic of commodities to the full value chain for books, which made sense 200 years ago. But it makes no sense to apply the logic of commodities to digitally produced and distributed media. The production of culture has been slowly becoming more distorted as cultural assets that should be and historically were held in common accumulates under the umbrella of massive intellectual property holders (Disney, Universal, etc) after we took the legal concept that was meant to apply to a much more narrow context and applied it broadly. They benefit disproportionally from intellectual property than individual artists do. The (recent) past dominating the present, being ruled by abstractions, and all that. Is it bad that this will be used to displace individual artists/creatives in the value chain of media production? Of course it is. But we shouldn't be responding to that by clinging harder to schemes that have outlived their usefulness, we should be developing new models for funding production.

rvz 3y ago
> Copyright is something we made up to extend the logic of commodities to the full value chain for books, which made sense 200 years ago. But it makes no sense to apply the logic of commodities to digitally produced and distributed media. Great! So given your articles are in the public domain on your website I can make millions out of it without given you a cent or direct credit and sources without paying you and can claim it all as my own then.
- abakker 3y ago
  This argument kind of elides over how you will make the millions, when the author has not. The hypothetical of lost revenue needs to be validated by the evidence of actual revenue being made in this way. Right now, I see lots of interest in paying for the _tool_, but almost none in paying human wages for the _output_ of generative models. (I am not proposing that my above distinction is a legal test. Just pointing out that all these arguments would be more credible if actual ai generated works were being sold by AI companies)
  - rvz 3y ago
    As long as it is public domain it does not matter how the millions is made; ebook, book or newsletter. There is no recognition of 'lost revenue' for the commercialization of public domain works.
    - abakker 3y ago
      I don't disagree at all. The OP I was responding to mentioned non-public-domain works like a blog. My point was that we haven't yet seen the products of GenAI stuff really making money yet. People are paying for the tool, and people are paying for work that is being done using the tool, but nobody buys a book, image, movie, or similar from OpenAI or Google directly.
- roenxi 3y ago
  Anyone who programs for a living should be making whatever preparations are possible for being replaced by an AI. If AIs are good at art they'll be better at coding. I have sympathy for the artists, but frankly this is progress and it can't be stopped. The economics are so lop-sided in favour of silicon that the law won't be able to hold it back without crippling society at large. Artists aren't the only ones affected and they may not even be the profession most impacted.
  - myaccountonhn 3y ago
    > I have sympathy for the artists, but frankly this is progress and it can't be stopped. Kinda sad that artists having their income even more crippled is seen as progress.
    - ben_w 3y ago
      Some places have government grants funding the arts. On the other hand, I grew up in one of those places, the UK, and there were a lot of people moaning that the TV License (which funds the BBC) was an abominable stealth tax or words to that effect. I'm now in Germany, where everyone has to pay the equivalent even if they don't own a TV or watch live over the internet (unlike the UK where not doing that means you don't need to pay); I've not heard anyone complain so far… but I don't know if that's because they genuinely don't, or if I'm peacefully oblivious by never having been suckered into reading a German-language comments section.
    - EnergyAmy 3y ago
      That's only true if artists cling to the old ways and reject new tools. Their income can increase if they embrace the new empowering tools becoming available.
    - Kim_Bruning 3y ago
      At the moment I'm in the situation where having AI tools means I'm willing to try things I've never tried before; including having actually considered hiring artists for the first time ever. Sadly, I think most artists would bite my head off right this minute? So I guess I'm going to have to wait until the storm blows over.
- WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
  > I can make millions out of it without given you a cent or direct credit and sources without paying you and can claim it all as my own then. This describes how ideas work - and ideas are rarely (if ever) IP-locked by a first originator - because there usually isn't one. Everything by everyone, everywhere is built on the output of predecessors. Progress is a shared effort made up of minuscule increments or slight reorderings - which are typically done several times before they catch on. IP exists to hinder this process by preventing 99.99999% of potential people from advancing ideas.
- treyd 3y ago
  If someone ran a print shop and printed out my articles into a book called "Collected works by Trey on HN" or something and didn't give me a cent then yeah I'd be thrilled, because it's a validation of my work. I already published the articles, they're doing all the work to put them into print, what right do I really have to claim part of the sales? But if they claimed that they wrote the content then they would be defrauding their customers, since saying they wrote them would just be lying. You don't need intellectual property for fraud (as in "lying for material gain") to exist and be bad. At the very least it would be dishonest academically speaking and they should be criticized for it.
  - mistrial9 3y ago
    you would throw out hundreds of years of copyright law on a whim. This is economic suicide for independent creatives. The most tragic part of this is that creatives themselves, immersed in creativity, see no rhyme or reason to stop the flow. Over time, those that grow old or weak are discarded with no rights to their own work. Yes, it is that bad.
    - treyd 3y ago
      Have you listened to artists and creatives talk about copyright recently? Especially ones that publish on newer, digital distribution platforms like YouTube? There's numerous more thorough critiques of copyright law and calls to abolish it from across the political spectrum. You're mischaracterizing me by suggesting that it's "economic suicide", as I said in my original comment in this thread: > But we shouldn't be responding to that by clinging harder to schemes that have outlived their usefulness, we should be developing new models for funding production. Sure it would be disruptive if we snapped our fingers and said "no more IP starting tomorrow", there should be a gradual phasing out of these unfair protections and effort put into sustainable pro-creative models.
      - mistrial9 3y ago
        YouTube where the user account can be terminated without notice, and with no recourse?
- EnergyAmy 3y ago
  I don't think you've really thought this through. How would someone make millions off of that? If someone tried, the original author is still offering it for free. Why would someone pay for it? A lot of people are very myopic about generative AI, thinking that large Hollywood studios are going to steal people's work and put everyone out of a job. Hollywood studios won't exist soon enough because anyone will be able to put together a movie that rivals existing expensive productions. In fact, generative AI is democratizing, as long as it's not gatekept by a few large corporations, which is exactly what trying to misapply copyright here would do.
  - rvz 3y ago
    > I don't think you've really thought this through. How would someone make millions off of that? If someone tried, the original author is still offering it for free. Why would someone pay for it? Tens of millions of fans of a living celebrity would pay for it and the fans do not care about the original author as long as it is the celebrity's name that is selling it and can claim it as their own. They don't need to give credit or sources to whatever their selling to generate millions.
    - AwaAwa 3y ago
      Given a generation or so, a celebrity mostly won't have tens of millions of fans, because there will be tens of millions of celebrities. It's happening already but they are just called 'influencers, podcasters, youtubers' at the moment, with the line getting more blurred everyday.
      - rvz 3y ago
        My point still stands, depending on the price of say a book with the same text, etc which a celebrity with their millions of fans or tens of millions of fans can sell them and claim as their own. Either way, they can make millions out of it, even if you are the original author and don't need to give you credit.

by treyd 3y ago

rvz 3y ago

> Copyright is something we made up to extend the logic of commodities to the full value chain for books, which made sense 200 years ago. But it makes no sense to apply the logic of commodities to digitally produced and distributed media. Great! So given your articles are in the public domain on your website I can make millions out of it without given you a cent or direct credit and sources without paying you and can claim it all as my own then.

abakker 3y ago
This argument kind of elides over how you will make the millions, when the author has not. The hypothetical of lost revenue needs to be validated by the evidence of actual revenue being made in this way. Right now, I see lots of interest in paying for the _tool_, but almost none in paying human wages for the _output_ of generative models. (I am not proposing that my above distinction is a legal test. Just pointing out that all these arguments would be more credible if actual ai generated works were being sold by AI companies)
- rvz 3y ago
  As long as it is public domain it does not matter how the millions is made; ebook, book or newsletter. There is no recognition of 'lost revenue' for the commercialization of public domain works.
  - abakker 3y ago
    I don't disagree at all. The OP I was responding to mentioned non-public-domain works like a blog. My point was that we haven't yet seen the products of GenAI stuff really making money yet. People are paying for the tool, and people are paying for work that is being done using the tool, but nobody buys a book, image, movie, or similar from OpenAI or Google directly.
roenxi 3y ago
Anyone who programs for a living should be making whatever preparations are possible for being replaced by an AI. If AIs are good at art they'll be better at coding. I have sympathy for the artists, but frankly this is progress and it can't be stopped. The economics are so lop-sided in favour of silicon that the law won't be able to hold it back without crippling society at large. Artists aren't the only ones affected and they may not even be the profession most impacted.
- myaccountonhn 3y ago
  > I have sympathy for the artists, but frankly this is progress and it can't be stopped. Kinda sad that artists having their income even more crippled is seen as progress.
  - ben_w 3y ago
    Some places have government grants funding the arts. On the other hand, I grew up in one of those places, the UK, and there were a lot of people moaning that the TV License (which funds the BBC) was an abominable stealth tax or words to that effect. I'm now in Germany, where everyone has to pay the equivalent even if they don't own a TV or watch live over the internet (unlike the UK where not doing that means you don't need to pay); I've not heard anyone complain so far… but I don't know if that's because they genuinely don't, or if I'm peacefully oblivious by never having been suckered into reading a German-language comments section.
  - EnergyAmy 3y ago
    That's only true if artists cling to the old ways and reject new tools. Their income can increase if they embrace the new empowering tools becoming available.
  - Kim_Bruning 3y ago
    At the moment I'm in the situation where having AI tools means I'm willing to try things I've never tried before; including having actually considered hiring artists for the first time ever. Sadly, I think most artists would bite my head off right this minute? So I guess I'm going to have to wait until the storm blows over.
WarOnPrivacy 3y ago
> I can make millions out of it without given you a cent or direct credit and sources without paying you and can claim it all as my own then. This describes how ideas work - and ideas are rarely (if ever) IP-locked by a first originator - because there usually isn't one. Everything by everyone, everywhere is built on the output of predecessors. Progress is a shared effort made up of minuscule increments or slight reorderings - which are typically done several times before they catch on. IP exists to hinder this process by preventing 99.99999% of potential people from advancing ideas.
treyd 3y ago
If someone ran a print shop and printed out my articles into a book called "Collected works by Trey on HN" or something and didn't give me a cent then yeah I'd be thrilled, because it's a validation of my work. I already published the articles, they're doing all the work to put them into print, what right do I really have to claim part of the sales? But if they claimed that they wrote the content then they would be defrauding their customers, since saying they wrote them would just be lying. You don't need intellectual property for fraud (as in "lying for material gain") to exist and be bad. At the very least it would be dishonest academically speaking and they should be criticized for it.
- mistrial9 3y ago
  you would throw out hundreds of years of copyright law on a whim. This is economic suicide for independent creatives. The most tragic part of this is that creatives themselves, immersed in creativity, see no rhyme or reason to stop the flow. Over time, those that grow old or weak are discarded with no rights to their own work. Yes, it is that bad.
  - treyd 3y ago
    Have you listened to artists and creatives talk about copyright recently? Especially ones that publish on newer, digital distribution platforms like YouTube? There's numerous more thorough critiques of copyright law and calls to abolish it from across the political spectrum. You're mischaracterizing me by suggesting that it's "economic suicide", as I said in my original comment in this thread: > But we shouldn't be responding to that by clinging harder to schemes that have outlived their usefulness, we should be developing new models for funding production. Sure it would be disruptive if we snapped our fingers and said "no more IP starting tomorrow", there should be a gradual phasing out of these unfair protections and effort put into sustainable pro-creative models.
    - mistrial9 3y ago
      YouTube where the user account can be terminated without notice, and with no recourse?
EnergyAmy 3y ago
I don't think you've really thought this through. How would someone make millions off of that? If someone tried, the original author is still offering it for free. Why would someone pay for it? A lot of people are very myopic about generative AI, thinking that large Hollywood studios are going to steal people's work and put everyone out of a job. Hollywood studios won't exist soon enough because anyone will be able to put together a movie that rivals existing expensive productions. In fact, generative AI is democratizing, as long as it's not gatekept by a few large corporations, which is exactly what trying to misapply copyright here would do.
- rvz 3y ago
  > I don't think you've really thought this through. How would someone make millions off of that? If someone tried, the original author is still offering it for free. Why would someone pay for it? Tens of millions of fans of a living celebrity would pay for it and the fans do not care about the original author as long as it is the celebrity's name that is selling it and can claim it as their own. They don't need to give credit or sources to whatever their selling to generate millions.
  - AwaAwa 3y ago
    Given a generation or so, a celebrity mostly won't have tens of millions of fans, because there will be tens of millions of celebrities. It's happening already but they are just called 'influencers, podcasters, youtubers' at the moment, with the line getting more blurred everyday.
    - rvz 3y ago
      My point still stands, depending on the price of say a book with the same text, etc which a celebrity with their millions of fans or tens of millions of fans can sell them and claim as their own. Either way, they can make millions out of it, even if you are the original author and don't need to give you credit.