Amazing how many copyright maximalists there are on a site called "Hacker News."
Seems to be a fairly recent trend. Wonder what changed.
Seems to be a fairly recent trend. Wonder what changed.
If it is adjudicated to be a violation, well, that's the end of copyright, for better or worse. AI is more important. Don't fight to lock down information; fight for equitable access instead.
The copyright industry has done all it can for us, even in the most charitable interpretation. They literally, by constitutional mandate, can't be allowed to stand in the way of progress. We're not talking Napster 2.0 here.
Copyright doesn't promote the progress of science. Rather the opposite, as it allows journals that contribute nothing to progress to charge the rest of us to access research our taxes paid for.
As for "arts," useful and otherwise, those are secured these days via unbreakable permanent DRM, which overtly violates the constitutional basis of copyright law as a time-limited bargain with the public domain. You should be at least as outraged about that as you are about AI, but evidently you're not.
Meanwhile, you'd have to have rocks in your head to argue that AI doesn't constitute scientific progress at a bare minimum.
I don't view any decision or legislation that grants unbreakable DRM the force of law as legitimate. A work should benefit from temporary legal protection or permanent technical protection, but not both. My position is that if the founders had meant something other than a "Limited Time," they would have said so. If you disagree, great, but that means we're done here.
Matters such as whether AI training is fair use are better subjects for judicial review, IMO, because there's no plain language to go by. Of course I reserve the right to disagree with that decision, and to subsequently ignore it, in keeping with the spirit of the times. :)
And a billion people in China will respect a copyright-maximalist decision even less than I will.