Hacker News Reader

Comment by zephen | Hacker News Reader

> You literally just gave an example above of that notion applying to copyright.

No, I literally did not. The difference may be subtle, but it is real, as I explained.

> Even if you can somehow prove you've never heard a particular song, You Live In A Society™ and that existing intellectual property's influence on society in turn influences subsequent creators.

And many musicians have won copyright cases, because their shit wasn't similar enough.

> There is, in other words, no such thing as true “independent creation”.

Which is why the whole enterprise is heavily fact-based. Seriously, think about it. If copyright is to have any teeth at all, then there has to be some line that can be crossed.

> Don't threaten me with a good time :)

Ah, I see where you're coming from. Well, I hate to break it to you, but the chances of AI eviscerating either copyright or patent laws are approximately nil.

View on HN

> And many musicians have won copyright cases, because their shit wasn't similar enough.

And many musicians have lost copyright cases, because — per my point — their shit was similar enough by complete accident, because

1. We Live In A Society™ and therefore are constantly exposed to all sorts of things we don't consciously remember 5 minutes later but which stick around subconsciously, lurking for your next “Eureka!” moment; and

2. Musical genres (especially the mainstream ones) tend to coalesce on rather limited sets of chord progressions and rhythms and such, so it becomes more and more difficult to write songs that fit within that genre without accidentally “plagiarizing” some other existing song in that genre (or a related one).

A careful reading of your previous comments seems to indicate that you are completely against the idea of intellectual property in any form.

That is fine. You do you.

But, again, if such property exists, then a line must be drawn.

Given the legal requirement to draw such a line, obviously some courts will sometimes get it wrong.

I understand you think you're making a cogent argument against intellectual property because the very concept requires drawing of the line, but no, you're really not.

If you come knock on my door to sell me shit, you're fine. If you repeatedly knock on my door when I've told you that's my nap time, you're harrassing and disturbing the peace.

Lines get drawn all the time, in every endeavor.

> I understand you think you're making a cogent argument against intellectual property because the very concept requires drawing of the line, but no, you're really not.

So you say, but inherent in the drawing of that line, anywhere, is the legal authority for one entity to prevent another from engaging in creative activity. Once upon a time it was not uncommon within online communities to believe, as I do, that such a prohibition is morally perilous and has indeed done more to hinder creative expression than to reward or protect it.

> If you come knock on my door to sell me shit, you're fine.

I don't consider that to be fine, either. There is a time and place for sales pitches; my front porch ain't it.

> inherent in the drawing of that line, anywhere, is the legal authority for one entity to prevent another from engaging in creative activity.

Seldom, if ever, is anybody restrained from "engaging in creative activity." As opposed to making public the results of their purported creativity.

> I don't consider that to be fine, either. There is a time and place for sales pitches; my front porch ain't it.

I don't consider it fine, personally, but I have been writing from a strictly legal standpoint. That line, as some idiots have found to their chagrin, does not allow you to shoot strangers who show up at your door.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com