3 ms·

Great steps in the right direction. Now the EU only needs to ensure property is not stolen by ai companies. Essentially if you cant prove your model has been tr

Great steps in the right direction. Now the EU only needs to ensure property is not stolen by ai companies. Essentially if you cant prove your model has been trained on content you have licensed then selling it should be illegal.

Spiwux 3y ago
Guilty until proven innocent. Very thoughtful take.
- gumballindie 3y ago
  It’s called burden of proof. And usually sits with those selling products.
  - wizzwizz4 3y ago
    In the US, the burden of proof is with the regulators, but there's higher liability than in the EU which is supposed to offset it. That usually applies to safety / fitness for purpose, though, not copyright: I don't think the arguments transfer from one to the other.
Kiro 3y ago
You're on a forum called Hacker News. Abolish all copyright.
- deadbunny 3y ago
  You're on a forum called Hacker News. Abolish all copyright except when it benefits me.
  - stale2002 3y ago
    How about lets just get rid of all of it.
    - Wytwwww 3y ago
      Copyright has been one of the primary driving forces behind human progress over the last couple hundreds of years. But sure, let's get rid of it... cause it's cool (or edgy, or whatever...)
      - stale2002 3y ago
        People sharing or even stealing other people's intellectual property rights has been an even bigger driving force of human progress. It's why places like San Francisco are the tech center of the world. The reason being, that all of the tech employees will often get all this great knowledge and then leave and start their own company, or at a minimum transfer that knowledge to other companies. The fact that California doesn't allow most non competes is an amazing example of how sharing knowledge has created amazing progress.
        Wytwwww 3y ago
        > People sharing or even stealing other people's intellectual property rights Because they can make money doing that. There has to be balance, having no copyright protection at all obvious would be disastrous. > this great knowledge and then leave and start their own company That's great, it's not illegal. > doesn't allow most non competes Cool. Also tangential and has no relation to copyright.
        stale2002 3y ago
        > That's great, it's not illegal. Indeed it is great that people can take knowledge and share it with others! More stuff like that should be legal. Using other's knowledge should be expanded and should become even more legal by getting rid of laws that prevent information from being shared. That's my whole point. It is an example where the sharing of knowledge and ideas is actually the large driver of innovation. Stealing and sharing ideas promotes lots of innovation. Because workers take their knowledge and share it with new companies that they join. > Also tangential and has no relation to copyright. No it's not tangential. It's completely related to the idea that sharing knowledge promotes innovation. > Because they can make money doing that. Indeed. People can indeed make money by sharing and stealing knowledge. That's my whole point! It promotes innovation and allows people to even make money. Glad you agree.
- CaptainFever 3y ago
  Indeed. Copying Is Not Theft.
  - conaclos 3y ago
    I could rephrase this way: Copying Is Theft if you made a lot of money with that. Copying Is Not Theft if you made a living of that.
    - CaptainFever 3y ago
      There's no difference in that. Copying Is Not Theft.
  - sabas123 3y ago
    But selling a copy is.
- gumballindie 3y ago
  Sure, but abolishing all corpyright means that owned by corporations too. Let's see microsoft's source code. It won't be of quality, but as soon as that will be used for training ml i would agree to mine being used.
  - Wytwwww 3y ago
    Why would they ever show it to anyone? Without copyright we'll go back to the middle ages with every craftsman/(modern equivalent) hiding their methods, techniques and technologies from everyone else the best they can (and consequently way less innovation). Also, we'd no longer have any movies, almost no books, music etc. bug I guess literally returning to the dark ages is what these silly "abolish all copyright" people want.
    - zlg_codes 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - Wytwwww 3y ago
        > We had culture before currency, guys. Sure, just like we had land vehicles before trains and automobiles. I doubt most people would be particularly enthusiastic about going back to horse-carts (of course some like you wouldn't have any issues with that just to prove some delusional points) this is no different whatsoever. > With the availability of tools and reverse-engineering techniques, nothing is truly secret anymore. The implications of that being? > copyright cartel. I assure you that corporations would do a lot better than individuals or small-scale professional content creators. e.g. if there were no copyright Amazon and publishers (the ones who survive) would still throw a few pennies towards some authors but they (the authors) would be in an inconceivably weaker position that they are now.
- qwytw 3y ago
  Right.. it's also called 'news.ycombinator' which is certainly not an organization which would ever support abolishing copyright. Besides it's also a terrible idea, not having copyright would stifle innovation for years. It's probably one of the best things humanity ever came up with (good luck making money being a writer in the the pre copyright days...).
  - zlg_codes 3y ago
    People like you must've thought science and art and writing and other shit didn't exist before currency. Like you need a monetary incentive to get a human to do anything.
    - qwytw 3y ago
      And people like you must learn not to think (if you do actually think at all) in binary terms all the time (and maybe consider reading a history book or two). Yes it existed, at a massively smaller scale. > Like you need a monetary incentive to get a human to do anything. So we agree? Or was that a question? Because the answer is yes. Without copyright it was almost impossible (and still largely is) for any creator to make a living without being independently wealthy/being funded by a third party. If you're fine living in a world with almost no books (especially no fiction) and approximately zero non ultra low cost TV/movies (unless you count ads which would effectively become the only way of funding anything substantial..) etc. than sure maybe copyright is not really necessary.
pixl97 3y ago
Go EU, make "The Right to Read" real life!

Spiwux 3y ago

Guilty until proven innocent. Very thoughtful take.

gumballindie 3y ago
It’s called burden of proof. And usually sits with those selling products.
- wizzwizz4 3y ago
  In the US, the burden of proof is with the regulators, but there's higher liability than in the EU which is supposed to offset it. That usually applies to safety / fitness for purpose, though, not copyright: I don't think the arguments transfer from one to the other.

Kiro 3y ago

You're on a forum called Hacker News. Abolish all copyright.

deadbunny 3y ago
You're on a forum called Hacker News. Abolish all copyright except when it benefits me.
- stale2002 3y ago
  How about lets just get rid of all of it.
  - Wytwwww 3y ago
    Copyright has been one of the primary driving forces behind human progress over the last couple hundreds of years. But sure, let's get rid of it... cause it's cool (or edgy, or whatever...)
    - stale2002 3y ago
      People sharing or even stealing other people's intellectual property rights has been an even bigger driving force of human progress. It's why places like San Francisco are the tech center of the world. The reason being, that all of the tech employees will often get all this great knowledge and then leave and start their own company, or at a minimum transfer that knowledge to other companies. The fact that California doesn't allow most non competes is an amazing example of how sharing knowledge has created amazing progress.
      - Wytwwww 3y ago
        > People sharing or even stealing other people's intellectual property rights Because they can make money doing that. There has to be balance, having no copyright protection at all obvious would be disastrous. > this great knowledge and then leave and start their own company That's great, it's not illegal. > doesn't allow most non competes Cool. Also tangential and has no relation to copyright.
        stale2002 3y ago
        > That's great, it's not illegal. Indeed it is great that people can take knowledge and share it with others! More stuff like that should be legal. Using other's knowledge should be expanded and should become even more legal by getting rid of laws that prevent information from being shared. That's my whole point. It is an example where the sharing of knowledge and ideas is actually the large driver of innovation. Stealing and sharing ideas promotes lots of innovation. Because workers take their knowledge and share it with new companies that they join. > Also tangential and has no relation to copyright. No it's not tangential. It's completely related to the idea that sharing knowledge promotes innovation. > Because they can make money doing that. Indeed. People can indeed make money by sharing and stealing knowledge. That's my whole point! It promotes innovation and allows people to even make money. Glad you agree.
CaptainFever 3y ago
Indeed. Copying Is Not Theft.
- conaclos 3y ago
  I could rephrase this way: Copying Is Theft if you made a lot of money with that. Copying Is Not Theft if you made a living of that.
  - CaptainFever 3y ago
    There's no difference in that. Copying Is Not Theft.
- sabas123 3y ago
  But selling a copy is.
gumballindie 3y ago
Sure, but abolishing all corpyright means that owned by corporations too. Let's see microsoft's source code. It won't be of quality, but as soon as that will be used for training ml i would agree to mine being used.
- Wytwwww 3y ago
  Why would they ever show it to anyone? Without copyright we'll go back to the middle ages with every craftsman/(modern equivalent) hiding their methods, techniques and technologies from everyone else the best they can (and consequently way less innovation). Also, we'd no longer have any movies, almost no books, music etc. bug I guess literally returning to the dark ages is what these silly "abolish all copyright" people want.
  - zlg_codes 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - Wytwwww 3y ago
      > We had culture before currency, guys. Sure, just like we had land vehicles before trains and automobiles. I doubt most people would be particularly enthusiastic about going back to horse-carts (of course some like you wouldn't have any issues with that just to prove some delusional points) this is no different whatsoever. > With the availability of tools and reverse-engineering techniques, nothing is truly secret anymore. The implications of that being? > copyright cartel. I assure you that corporations would do a lot better than individuals or small-scale professional content creators. e.g. if there were no copyright Amazon and publishers (the ones who survive) would still throw a few pennies towards some authors but they (the authors) would be in an inconceivably weaker position that they are now.
qwytw 3y ago
Right.. it's also called 'news.ycombinator' which is certainly not an organization which would ever support abolishing copyright. Besides it's also a terrible idea, not having copyright would stifle innovation for years. It's probably one of the best things humanity ever came up with (good luck making money being a writer in the the pre copyright days...).
- zlg_codes 3y ago
  People like you must've thought science and art and writing and other shit didn't exist before currency. Like you need a monetary incentive to get a human to do anything.
  - qwytw 3y ago
    And people like you must learn not to think (if you do actually think at all) in binary terms all the time (and maybe consider reading a history book or two). Yes it existed, at a massively smaller scale. > Like you need a monetary incentive to get a human to do anything. So we agree? Or was that a question? Because the answer is yes. Without copyright it was almost impossible (and still largely is) for any creator to make a living without being independently wealthy/being funded by a third party. If you're fine living in a world with almost no books (especially no fiction) and approximately zero non ultra low cost TV/movies (unless you count ads which would effectively become the only way of funding anything substantial..) etc. than sure maybe copyright is not really necessary.

pixl97 3y ago

Go EU, make "The Right to Read" real life!