Hacker News Reader

Comment by johnnyanmac | Hacker News Reader

Sure, courts have the power to subpoena for a lot of stuff. I don't really see the concern though: courts also can redact a lot of sensitive information when it releases the case (see Epic v. Apple, lots of unannounced titles and deals we learned of, and just as many redacted).

>It's not going to stop the rise of LLMs.

Disney might, though.

I think few want to "stop the rise of LLM's", though. I personally just want the 3 C's the be followed: credit, consent, compensation. If it costs a billion dollars to compensate all willing parties to train on their data: good. If someone doesn't want their data trained on it no matter how big the paycheck: also good.

I don't know why that's such a hot take (well. that's rhetorical. I've had many a comment here unironically wanting to end copyright as a concept). That's how every other media company has had to do things.

View on HN

> Sure, courts have the power to subpoena for a lot of stuff. I don't really see the concern though: courts also can redact a lot of sensitive information when it releases the case (see Epic v. Apple, lots of unannounced titles and deals we learned of, and just as many redacted).

It's not the public reading the information I'd concerned about, it's every data-hungry corporation that manages to file a lawsuit.

The courts put a lot of trust in lawyers: they'll redact the sensitive information from me and you, but take the view that lawyers are "officers of the court" and get to make copies of anything they convince the court to drag into evidence. But those officers of the court actually work for the same data-harvesting companies and have minimal oversight regarding what they share with them.

And then we're just one hacker away from having the entire heap on the big internet.

>I've had many a comment here unironically wanting to end copyright as a concept

I mean, the site's name is Hacker News after all, even though so many of the "hackers" here are confessing their love for Intellectual Property and Copyright law, and everybody chanting the well-known slogan "Information wants to be proprietary!".

I'm not an LLM promoter by any stretch, but even from my perspective, it is somewhat funny to see the shift regarding copyright the last couple years. Before ChatGPT it was all rent-seeking antiquated legislature that needed to be thrown out, now the hatred for LLMs seems to have superceded the need for "free"-ness.

The problem there, is seeing the underlying theme. People wanted less of the same. They didn't want big groups controlling the vast amount of the art that they were exposed to. Throwing away copyright, might allow more competition in the space.

Allowing LLMs freedom to snap up everything, overwhelming hurts the smaller people who would have led to said competition. It further entrenches all the biggest players.

In other words, people have little interest in actually trying to figure out what kind of legislation and system design can help the best and most diverse art to flourish with good long term incentives.

And a lot more interest in figuring out "Who does this benefit in The Class War in the short term?", and changing their opinion of legislation so they're on the same side of that.

It's socially consistent, logically questionable.

> I've had many a comment here unironically wanting to end copyright as a concept

Given how blatantly "copyright" has been (and still is) abused by multibillion dollar corporations (with Disney being the most notorious) it's no surprise that there will be a counter-movement forming.

Complete abolishment is of course a pretty radical proposal but I think pretty much everyone here agrees that both the patent and copyright situation warrants a complete overhaul.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com