Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by LightHugger | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

LightHugger

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

View on HN

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.

I don't think you can look to the past to picture a future with AI.

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.

Authors, artists, actors etc whose work have been ripped off by mega corporations like Meta, OpenAI, Google etc would disagree.

How are Modern Copyright laws helping authors, artists, and actors in those cases?

It's allowing them to sue OpenAI for copyright infringement:

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/jul/05/authors-file-a...

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.

Allowing them to block human intellectual progress may not be the long-term win you assume it is.

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.

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.

That hasn't protected copywritten works in the past: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors_Guild,_Inc._v._Google,....

People should be paid for their labor.

Then they shouldn't give away their work for free.

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.

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.

> I will not respect an authority that forces me to rent digital content.

They are very obviously asking you to respect the individual artists.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com