Join the discussion
Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.
- Hacker News
- The EFF has managed to keep to the letter of its principles while discarding the spirit of them; it's now defending enormous commercial concerns that hoover up and hoard data, at the expense of people creating and sharing information.
A small number of huge corporations keeping tight control of data and access to data is not a pro-freedom stance.
by Planktonne - The EFF is in the pocket of Big-AI, and this isn't the first time.
"It is not the place of courts to say these people are not artists or that AI cannot augment human creativity in a positive way."
Yes it is. If you had ever created anything, which you have not, you would know! You are a couple of tech bureaucrats who want foundation salaries and change with the political winds.
by 123aGa - I consider current length of copyright to be extremely too long.
On other hand I also think that creators should be compensated when their creations are used to train AI models and this compensation should be substantial per company. And to any fallacious person telling about humans also "learning". Well humans brains are not replicated en masse just yet. And single learned person is not made to millions of copies and made to answer inane queries day and night...
by Ekaros - I disagree with restrictions on digestive use of a work. If I legally acquire a book, I should be able to run that data through an algorithm, and I should be allowed to share the result freely as long as it's not replicating the original.by beej71
- Guess it's time to stop donating to the EFF. They're completely off the mark this time.
The random loser generating slop in his bedroom isn't necessarily the one infringing, it's the AI company that took all of our work and is reselling it that is infringing. This is an obvious blind spot in copyright law and no reasonable person would consider that to be fair use. The challenge I think is communicating to a layman how AI training works.
For the people currently in the grips of AI psychosis: new regulation here is good for AI too. AI models will not get more creative without new human training data, but the current exploitative situation means people are not incentivized to keep creating. Human artists who create new things should be rewarded by the market, as copyright law intended. Even if their work only ever ends up feeding some gen AI model, they should still be entitled to compensation in some way (eg royalties). They worked hard so that you don't have to.™
Instead, AI companies are the ones being rewarded for it. That's not sustainable for anyone.
by bogwog - It's funny to hear people repeat, "AI will replace you!" Then beg for more training data of humans being humans.by seki285
- To be fair AI as we have it today wouldn't exist if everything was copyrighted and copyright was enforced very strictly across the web. Not sure if it's fair use and I get that it's not great if these companies try to monopolize knowledge (if they even can do that) but overall being more lax on copyright for fair use is good. Especially scientific knowledge should be openly accessibly to anyone, imagine what we could achieve if we could train LLMs on everything and make it accessible to everyone.by ThePhysicist
- Copyright in general, is too long, too broad, and - thanks largely to DMCA - enforced too strictly. One reason for China's success in tech is their willingness to ignore all the IP nonsense (or at least look the other way) allowing folks to rapidly iterate on ideas without running into IP rent-seekers at every turn.by AlexandrB
- I think we need to adjust copyright to balance market needs and preservation needs. AI works best when we can strike a balance between the needs of the creator to get compensated and the need of the general public to use content in ways the creator didn't anticipate.by gwbas1c
- You might be right, but I think we need at least 10 years before we can really start this discussion, and the discussion itself needs to take many more years.by bluGill
- in the few books I've read about technological breakthroughs, the vast majority come from academia. I'm thinking about Eckert's adoption of IBM's ticker tape for commands rather than just rote data [0], all the inventions that came out of the NDRC [1] (for better or worse), the ENIAC, FORTRAN, how reliant solid state devices were on understanding quantum theory [2], and so many other examples. Paul E. Ceruzzi's "Computing: A Concise History" goes over much of this (including making note of the US military's heavy usage of LLMs for the Iraq War pre-empted the consumer push for LLMs)
most of the things that private enterprise contributes is cost reduction and manufacturing capacity (important in their own right for ubiquity) but having extremely well-funded R&D and universities still seem like the primary driver for truly evolutionary and revolutionary breakthroughs rather than useful but not necessary optimizations
IP law very much aims to protect the latter so that breakthroughs can be capitalized on but aren't a necessary motivator for researchers to continue frontier work
(0)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_SSEC (1)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Research_Comm... (2)https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/textbook/semiconductors/chp...
by paimapi - Copyright is broken and needs major reform, but copyright must exist in some form as long as we are operating under the current economic system. If we want a society where some people have the job of creating art, then they must be compensated for their art. The leverage that artists have to demand compensation is controlling who access to their art. Said another way, the artist owns the right to make copies of their art. That is protected by law.
I think copyright as it exists is abused by large companies and stifles culture. Broadly speaking, I think copyright should be a much shorter term, lasting more like 20 years rather than the 100+ years that is typical (life of the author + 70 years). The exact term is debateable, but the purpose should be to allow the artist sufficient time to monetize their creation for themselves, and then allowing the art to belong to the broader culture. There should be a worthwhile financial incentive to create art.
My utopian dream would be a radically restructured society where we do not expect people to have "artist" as a career. Instead, people would work 15 hours a week doing the work that must be done to contributue to society. The compensation from that 15 hours of work guarantees all their needs to live in modest comfort. People then have more leisure time to pursue whatever they find self-actualizing, which for many will mean creating art and sharing it with the world.
by UtopiaPunk - 20 years of copyright from creation, just like patents. The first two Shrek movies should be public domain by now.by trashburger
- Under the current state of affairs, copyleft material can be laundered through LLMs without triggering proprietary weights from becoming open.
Something feels broken.
by fny - Yep. I've seen it happen and there's basically no recourse against it currently. And EFF is saying that it's fine… honestly not what I was expecting to read.by LtWorf
- You could always do that with copyright programs. The only thing that changed was the cost. The only example of somebody doing this was with the BIOS of the original IBM PC, but it was always possible and since nothing was copied it is legal. Somebody else did all the hard work.
Patents are the only protection that should exist for this type of thing. (though finding an algorithm worth patenting is hard - most are either a small variation easy to work around, or so old that prior art exists from 50 years ago).
by bluGill - I think the asymmetry of fair use is what feels the most wrong about copyright and AI. Forever, fair use has been limited with an iron fist: you can’t rip that DVD because it’s copy-protected; You can only use 10s of that song in your school project. Then these AI companies wield fair use like a sledgehammer in a way that nobody has been able to for decades to enormously profit. Maybe it’s technically correct, but it feels like mass exploitation of a loophole that the legal system has previously taken a dim view towards (see: Aereo).by teeray
- I'm aware that my GPL3 licensed software has been rewritten using AI to get rid of the GPL license by a large weapons company.
Seems to me the EFF is entirely fine with it?
by LtWorf - Independend of AI I am fully supporting the idea to abolish copyright in general, full stop. Allowing cheap duplication and tweaking is what leads to fast innovation and culture changes. Explicit (costly) patents can remain in place to secure industrial-grade research processes, but the general everyday stuff, incluing music and literature and code and so on is something to strip default rights away to allow faster progress. and oh the poor artists: next to none percentage wise gets much royalties anymore, streaming income is close to zero usually even if popular, the only real world industry to defend are the parasites that do not create art to begin with but siphon production/distribution channels. you might disagree with me, just wanna make clear that some people like me are against this copyright theater before AI blew up in popularity.by anonyfox
- > next to none percentage wise gets much royalties anymore
While artists get paid less then many would like, royalties make up roughly 2/3rds of revenue of all the streaming giants, which is a huge amount of money. This recurring monthly, mostly passive income is still helpful for smaller professional bands in between touring.
When the indie band Xiu Xiu pulled out of Spotify many were quick to say it didn't matter that much except for exposure, but in interviews they pointed out that they lost a significant portion of they're yearly income from doing it just from the streaming royalties.
Many will say touring is where the real money is, but costs are rising and what I've heard its not as lucrative for smaller bands as it was in the past.
Some links: Spotify's own report on payouts, obviously a biased editorial, but good data nonetheless (for example 13K artists made 100k/year from spotify royalties alone) https://loudandclear.byspotify.com/payouts/
A transparent report on tour costs from a fairly popular indie band (notably they could make more if they were less principled or were a smaller band, but I think this report is still eye opening in terms of general costs) https://stereogum.com/2497822/los-campesinos-break-down-what...
by dropofwill - I believe copyright timeframes have gotten WAY out of hand and need to be reigned in to something more sensible, but I still think it's a valuable concept and don't want to see it abolished.
Patents on the other hand have become a total joke and I'd be happy to see them gone.
by CivBase - > Explicit (costly) patents can remain in place to secure industrial-grade research processes
I keep reading about big companies i) developing very similar drugs that are different enough to avoid patents, ii) using their size to prevent litigation.
So would keeping patents help?
by noja - if copyrigth is abolished. amazon would publish every single boon without giving a cent to writers. it would be reqlly hard for writers to make a living. Im not a fan of copyrigth and how is being used at the moment but I don't really see an alternative where writers still get paid.by kelvinjps10
- Go back to the old 28 year system. Dump the renewal.
This would align it with the patent system.
> what leads to fast innovation
Content becomes cultural artifacts - the whole birthday song copyright issue should have told Americans how broken the system was.
by zer00eyz - Author: I spent six months writing this story, I hope I can make some money selling it, it would be my dream to be able to keep doing this full time.
You: I will steal this, consume it, reprint it as I see fit and you will earn nothing.
Yeah... I don't think your opinions are worth much.
by dageshi - > and oh the poor artists: next to none percentage wise gets much royalties anymore, streaming income is close to zero usually even if popular
Your argument is that artists aren’t paid enough, so we should go ahead and take it all the way to zero by law?
by Aurornis - I’m just not convinced that most artists would change their behavior under no copyright, so somewhat agree. But the main issue is length of time.
The fact that copyright is longer than patents makes no sense. Patents prove that a shorter period is sufficient to stimulate large investment. And you have to pay for patents!
If you assume reasonable discount rates, the economic value plummets over time for an asset producing the same income (a bad assumption for copyright work in general).
At an 8% discount rate, extending copyright from 32 years to infinity adds less than 10% to its total present-day value. There are many good reform proposals, but mine would be something like 15ish years of free copyright, followed by 1 paid renewal for 15 years that is modest in price (eg $1000) and one extra 10 year renewal that is something like $1M. Meaning you have most economically neutral work free up at year 15, small business types having it affordable through 30 years, and the big Hollywood productions can go from 30-40 years for a modest (to them) fee to incentivize investments in expensive works. Movies come to mind. Give existing work a 20 year buffer on top of that to transition and there is a very small economic effect on everyone.
by mchusma