6 ms·
if theres just one good thing coming out of ai its breaking copyright law forever. no one should be able to "own" ideas. royalties for commercial use is another
by tancop 5mo ago
if theres just one good thing coming out of ai its breaking copyright law forever. no one should be able to "own" ideas. royalties for commercial use is another thing and i support it but what we know as (non commercial) piracy and unlicensed fan art should be 100% legal
- Bombthecat 5mo agoYeah, I think we are at the point where copyright doesn't exist anymore, at least for AI
- hectdev 5mo agoAll of human knowledge (an exaggeration, I know) at our finger tips. It's the most punk rock, anarchist thing tech has done since the internet and it's funny it's shaped as a product.
- ses1984 5mo agoIf you get the impression of punk and anarchy, it's only because you're not looking any deeper than the veneer. Underneath, it's nothing like punk or anarchy.
- hectdev 5mo agoI'm considering the dispersement of tech. 3D printers disrupt needing to buy widgets from big companies and local llms disrupt needing to buy generalize software when you can make your own bespoke. AI will live on long after the big corporations burn out their money coffers.
- account42 5mo agoSure, a few mega-corporations of the scale to upset entire markets owning all information and renting it out as they see fit is very punk. A cyberpunk dystopia specifically.
- hectdev 5mo agoIf you consider the local llm scene which is closing the gaps, mega corporations become less possessive of all information.
- ux266478 5mo agoI think the most punk rock, anarchist thing that could happen is someone leverages the shitty, pre-digested consumer-facing models to orchestrate a cybersecurity incident where the frontier base models are stolen and freely distributed to the public.
- hectdev 5mo agoThe way the Chinese have been running inference against the US models is somewhat what you are saying.
- piloto_ciego 5mo agoThis is what boggles my freaking mind, it's so cool that this is happening, and most of the people I thought were the cool anarcho-punks are falling on the side of copyright and more capitalism-colonizing the space of ideas. It's crazy! People cannot even envision a world that's not this transactional thing and it's really sad. In the post-scarcity world it's going to be really hard to reprogram these people. Wasn't there a Star Trek episode about this with a cryonics guy?
- gspr 5mo agoThis is insane. How will any intellectual or artistic work be sustainable in this world? As a teenager I used to proclaim that "you can't own bits, maaaan" all the time. I've since grown up. Intellectual property is essential to safeguarding intellectual work. I'm not saying this out of greed – I'm a vocal advocate for the free software movement. It, too, relies on a semi-sane framework of intellectual property. So do Hollywood studios. So do the makers of AI (well, since they're not actually sustainable at all currently, I guess you can say they don't rely on anything).
- Bombthecat 5mo agoThat's the neat part, you won't.
- jaccola 5mo agoWhat? If I want to read Harry Potter or watch The Matrix an AI cannot produce something equally as good for me. So I need to pay those people, or break the law. For lots of online knowledge/blogs I guess it is true but even here I often read explainer blogs because AI casts everything in a certain narrative/tone that isn’t always appropriate.
- cortesoft 5mo ago> If I want to read Harry Potter or watch The Matrix an AI cannot produce something equally as good for me. Yet
- kube-system 5mo agoCopyright specifically doesn't and never did protect "ideas", it protects expression.
- caconym_ 5mo agoI wonder how many of the books I love would still have been written in a world where somebody could scoop them all up and post them on the internet for free (and run ads).
- _aavaa_ 5mo agoI wonder how many would be written if copyright was only 20 years instead of more than a century? To the point that most people will never be legally allowed to directly build off of the culture they grew up in. Lord of the rings will be under copyright til roughly 2050. I think Tolkien's estate has gotten more than enough money from that book and it's time to let other use the word hobbit without the threat of a lawsuit.
- caconym_ 5mo ago> I wonder how many would be written if copyright was only 20 years instead of more than a century? I expect it would not move the needle much. I support reduced copyright periods, though not in the specific way you do. But that's not what we're talking about here, is it? The comment I replied to seemed to be advocating for total abolition of copyright law, and my comment is written to be interpreted in that context. > To the point that most people will never be legally allowed to directly build off of the culture they grew up in. What specifically are you talking about? Every author borrows from what came before. Copyright law doesn't even enter the picture in the vast majority of cases, because you generally don't have to copy to "build off of the culture [you] grew up in".
- _aavaa_ 5mo agoFor what it’s worth I think abolishing copyright wouldn’t have as big of an impact on art production as you do. Most artists (e.g. musicians or authors) aren’t struggling because their art is popular but copied by others (or lack of copyright). But because nobody listens to or reads their work. Even before AI more people tried to be an author/musician than could ever hope to gain even financial success. I don’t think less copyright will dissuade them. > every author borrows Borrows yes. But that has changed drastically in the last 100 years because of what has become the copyright system. I’ll be long dead and gone before people can make and publish their own LOTR, or Star Wars, or whatever franchise they grew up with. Disney would be impossible to start given the current regulations, all those tales would be locked up, and we would all be worse for it.
- groundzeros2015 5mo agoThe alternative to strong property rights and norms is secrecy and enforcement.
- gspr 5mo agoThis is a strictly worse world in almost every sense. It's as if we abolished physical property rights and suggested people arm themselves to keep what is (was) theirs instead. Civilization, gone.
- beering 5mo agoIt’s a false equivalence to say that intellectual property is property. Taking your car deprives you of your car. Taking your idea lets civilization advance.
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- groundzeros2015 5mo agoNo. It means people don’t invest in things they can’t control or keep secret.
- gspr 5mo ago> Taking your car deprives you of your car. Taking your idea lets civilization advance. Copyright is at the heart of the matter here, so let's focus on that. Copyright does not protect ideas. Wanna rephrase so that we stay on topic?
- gspr 5mo agoSo if you pour your heart and soul into writing a novel over the course of years, and it becomes modestly successful earning you a little money in return for your sweat, I should be allowed to just copy it, give it away for free (hell, even say I wrote it – it's not as if it's even yours to own in your world)?
- DharmaPolice 5mo agoYes.
- gspr 5mo agoWhat do you think this will do to the production of novels going forward?
- 0rganize 5mo agolol, never going to happen. I remember when the RIAA was successfully able to shake down tens of thousands of individuals for pirating music in the 2000s. If you’re a pleb, stealing copyrighted materials will get you some nasty fines, lawsuits and criminal charges. If you’re a megacorp with unlimited buckets of cash, then there is no accountability.
- deaton 5mo agoThis is an incredibly naive view of intellectual property. If you cannot own things you create, there is little incentive to create and share those things. Do you think any of your favorite movies and TV shows ever get made without copyright protections? Of course not, because money needs to change hands for those things to be funded.
- nehal3m 5mo agoThis is naive in the opposite. Creators gonna create.
- Jtarii 5mo agoWho is giving a creator millions of dollars to create something if there is no guaranteed path to recouping production costs. Are we going the communist soviet union route where everything is decided by central committee?
- nehal3m 5mo agoThat is not the only scale to create on. Also, Linux is free. There’s more than one way to make something available.
- runarberg 5mo agoI think you may be too optimistic about the state of affairs under capitalism. Very rarely do things change which don't benefit the owning class without direct action from the working class that puts adequate pressure on the rich, i.e actions which threatens their profits.
- kibwen 5mo agoThen go ahead and abolish copyright for everyone. Instead we're stuck in an even worse system where the hypercorporations gleefully plagiarize everyone else while sending SWAT teams to kill anyone who pirates a movie.
- rkozik1989 5mo agoJesus is just an uncopyrighted Mickey Mouse if you have no morals. People have been abusing that fact for a long time and have made some pretty abhorrent products.
- Salgat 5mo agoObviously there's an ideal middle ground, but what LLMs do is allow free transfer of knowledge while still (mostly) preserving the protections that copyright should be protecting. For example, I can have an LLM give me the entire plot of a book (which is fine), but it won't spit out an exact copy of the book.
- nailer 5mo agoI can get an LLM to spit out an exact copy of my python-docx library.
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- gagan2020 5mo agoCan we do that for Medical field? Like if we know formulation of drug then drug (+ any smaller modification - through AI) could be new formulation. That will break current Medical patent system.
- jaccola 5mo agoThis is how the drug industry already works. I don’t think there’s any evidence “AI” (LLM) is capable of producing valid drug modifications.
- gagan2020 5mo agoIn current status AI models cannot do that. But, if they do then it will break Medical Patent model.
- Ekaros 5mo agoThe value in Medical patents is not the idea. It is the process of proving efficacy and safety. Which are the expensive parts. And I doubt we will trust AI with those any time soon. We grand Medical Patents because proving things is expensive and that process needs to be encouraged.
- alok-g 5mo ago>> if theres just one good thing coming out of ai its breaking copyright law forever. no one should be able to "own" ideas. >> Can we do that for Medical field? Note: IANAL. Well, if we do that (i.e., no one can own ideas), then the patent system is gone in its entirety, including for medical. I do not think it is straightforward to isolate just medical. AFAIK, software was isolated in some regions, however, workarounds showed up. The more important question here is if AI is allowed to be a (solo or contributing) inventor. There have been judgments on the same in some jurisdictions, however, AFAIK, this is still an open topic. Now that AI is coming up with mathematical proofs of advanced statements, there should be no doubt that AI, capability-wise, can make inventions like humans do (comparing outcome, not the process). However, just like for copyright, a broader framework is needed to answer whether the legal thinking accepts AI's output as "inventions" (that can pass criteria for patentability) before we can say "AI can make inventions".
- vaylian 5mo agoThe biggest problem is not the broken commercialization, but the broken attribution. People should be recognized, when they create art. Art is an important way of how we humans express ourselves.
- scotty79 5mo agoIf you penalize and stigmatize copying, you get broken attribution.
- olivierestsage 5mo agoThe problem is that something like (say) a song is much more than an idea. It’s an idea + work (arrangement, production, performance, etc. depending on the situation). The argument for owning work, at least for X number of years in a limited way (vs. our current system), seems reasonable to me.
- pas 5mo agothe real problem is that the duration of the protection is both too long, and that the same protection is afforded to very small fragments of works too (for example to samples of songs) of course coming up with a more fair fair use system would help, and automatic royalty revenue sharing, and so on. but of course it's very hard to find a one size fits all ruleset, and also somehow dividing up creative spheres is itself bound to lead to nasty boundary dilemmas.
- krackers 5mo agoIt's not going to break, it'll selectively bend to the gravitational pull of wealth like it always has. You won't be able to use anna's archive to "download" that out of publication book, but companies will happily train on all that data and charge a subscription for you to prompt out a summarized version of it.