caconym_

I think copyrights held by individuals on intellectual property they created themselves should expire when they die, maybe with some minimum period of a decade or two to cover cases where royalties etc. could support next of kin. For copyrights held by corporations, or that have otherwise changed hands for money, I'd support a greatly reduced term, maybe on the order of 20 years?

It's strange to think of something like Star Wars being in the public domain, and the effects that might have on our cultural and media landscapes, but if you step back it feels even stranger that something intangible yet so culturally important can be continuously bought and sold and exploited by people who had nothing to do with its creation (almost 50 years ago).

In that sense I probably have a lot of common ground with the "abolish copyright" people, but I feel that most of them are champing at the bit to throw the baby out with the bathwater without having any skin in the game themselves. (sorry for the idiom overload there)

> What data makes you think it's low?

Observations of fellow readers, conversations with self- and traditionally-published authors, and some knowledge of the market?

But what is low, anyway? For the sake of argument I could believe 10, 20, even 30% of all the books people read are pirated. I would be surprised if it was higher, but let's just say hypothetically it's 50%. I think that's a reasonable conservative estimate. So, in this scenario, the remaining 50% of reads can in principle be monetized by their respective authors.

Abolition of copyright will drive that monetizable share essentially to 0%, for reasons I've outlined elsewhere in this thread.^[1]. I consider that meaningful, and I have personally had conversations with published authors who state that the royalties they receive are financially significant, which is why I'm here in this thread taking the position that I'm taking.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48238503

> Disney did not create Snow White, Bambi, Robin Hood, or Peter Pan.

I believe I stated above that I support reducing copyright periods (to the lifetime of the original author would be appropriate IMO, if the copyright is held by an individual, and I would be open to a more aggressive schedule for corporate copyrights). AFAIK all of Disney's adaptations of these stories would be allowed under that rule; some of these original stories are centuries old. But no, I don't think Disney should be able to immediately adapt a book I've written and not give me a cent out of the billions they will make off the adaptation. I would sell more books that way, sure---except I actually wouldn't, because in that world I have also lost the ability to monetize my work. So it's more accurate to say that somebody else would sell more of my books, or that I would give away more of my books.

And yes, it's more appropriate to call these adaptations. Fan fiction is more in the vein of original stories using (somebody else's) established characters and settings.

> To a large degree individual artists do not hold copyright for their work, they often sign it away (especially musicians and authors) in exchange for signing, advances, and distribution.

"To a large degree" is obviously meaningless, but a good author's agent will retain your core copyright and other rights (e.g. film adaptation, publishing/distribution in other countries, etc.).

> I think they will still be financed. Take books, I don't think bookstores will want to vertically integrate from book discovery through printing and retail stores. Consumers will still need ways to identify reputable book publishers to limit what they purchase next.

You are conflating production and distribution. If there is no copyright, the second a single copy of a work becomes available it will be scraped and offered by every distribution platform in the business, who are all free to curate their "storefronts" however they please. The difference is that they don't have to pay a cent for production, royalties, or anything else.

As an example, say I publish a new short story on my Patreon, which I use to support my writing---the idea being that if people want to read my shorts they have to pay for access. In this new regime, that newly posted story is going to appear on Amazon and every other big platform within hours, for cheaper than my Patreon membership or even free. And if I am an established name, there is no reason Amazon can't put my book front and center in their KDP feeds, etc.

The same goes for any other publishing model. The author and publisher (if applicable) immediately lose all ability to get a return on their investment, except to the extent that they can organically attract people to the correct listing on the correct distribution platform, which will have to be price-competitive with other listings.

It's the same story for paper books, too. B&N can just print copies of my book and display it front and center in their stores, without even asking me, and certainly without paying me anything.

And the same goes for other types of media. Why wouldn't it? This is why I say the commodity slop is all that will be left---that kind of IP synergizes best with the massive marketing efforts and platform consolidation that will be required to recoup your investments in content. Not much might even change in that world.

> The 0.00001$ per stream for musicians? Or the 1$ residual checks for reruns?

There is always going to be a long tail, and there are always going to be great artists who go unrecognized and unrewarded. It's also true that monolithic modern platforms like Spotify are going to leverage their position as gatekeepers to squeeze artists as far as possible. But it's ignorant (or possibly disingenuous, and anyway categorically incorrect) to claim that the above means nobody is getting paid substantial amounts for their work via these mechanisms. I suggest you seek out the authors of some of your favorite recent novels (if you read) and ask them whether losing royalties would have a substantial impact on their finances and ability to keep writing.

What percentage of books read by Americans in 2025 (or choose another relatively recent year) were pirated?

> Yes I do, in part because the difference between fan fiction and fiction, is that one has the blessing of the copyright holder while the other doesn't.

This is a really odd thing to say. You can just go write your own fiction, right now. You can invent your own original characters and setting and plot and go write it. You will automatically own the copyright to your own work; there is no other party who must "bless" your efforts.

I have nothing against fan fiction, but it's an edge case.

> If lack of copyright for fan fiction and derivative work hasn't stopped good fan fiction authors from doing good work, then I don't think that we will lose much if the newest Marvel movie or franchise reboot also can't be copyrighted.

I mean, I don't think we will lose much if the latter doesn't exist. I think I have made it clear that my specific concern is for individual artists who hold the rights to their work, not purveyors of commodity slop. But, since you mentioned it, what effect do you think abolishment of copyright will have on the production of films that are actually good? Who will finance them when it's impossible to directly monetize them? If anything I think commodity slop will be the only thing that gets funded anymore, since it probably synergizes best with massive distribution platforms and hundred million dollar multi-media marketing blitzes. Everyone else can go the Neil Breen route.

> I don't see a good reason for keeping it though. Copyright isn't why artists are being paid pennies for their work.

Yeah, you're right. No artists are relying on royalties and similar payments for their work. I'm sure none of them will complain if we take all that away.

No, I don't really think it is.

Cool. Let me know when the government is willing to pay me to write full time---I would love to quit my job and do that instead. I think it's a great idea!

Piracy is illegal and most people don't do it.

In a world without copyright, I can stand up a slick 100% legal website (and apps, etc) and distribute electronic copies of every single book (or whatever) straight to normies' phones, and I am free to monetize this scheme however I want.

I guess you feel strongly that fan fiction and similar derivative works ought to be monetizable? I guess I really just don't care about that. It hasn't stopped huge numbers of amazing authors from doing their thing, and I don't think it's a good reason to [partially] abolish copyright except in a very specific and limited scope.

> The worthwhile ones would still be written.

Citation needed, as well as your precise definition of "worthwhile".

> Even if they are not enjoyable.

Huh?

> The dissemination of ideas from an activist perspective is uninhabitable

Yes, I understand that anti-copyright activists want to abolish copyright.

> I wonder how many would be written if copyright was only 20 years instead of more than a century?

I expect it would not move the needle much. I support reduced copyright periods, though not in the specific way you do. But that's not what we're talking about here, is it? The comment I replied to seemed to be advocating for total abolition of copyright law, and my comment is written to be interpreted in that context.

> To the point that most people will never be legally allowed to directly build off of the culture they grew up in.

What specifically are you talking about? Every author borrows from what came before. Copyright law doesn't even enter the picture in the vast majority of cases, because you generally don't have to copy to "build off of the culture [you] grew up in".

I wonder how many of the books I love would still have been written in a world where somebody could scoop them all up and post them on the internet for free (and run ads).

What the fuck? This is beyond the pale.

> I would get rid of all forms of immunity

IIUC getting rid of "all forms of immunity" would essentially make it impossible for police officers to arrest anybody in good faith without exposing themselves to criminal prosecution (maybe that's what you want). But weakening or eliminating QI, which shields officers from civil liability, is sorely needed.

You didn't ask, but I'm not necessarily in favor of throwing cops in jail in many of these misconduct cases (for practical reasons at the very least). What should happen is that they be thrown off the force for good and prevented from working in law enforcement ever again. I don't believe you would need new criminal statutes to accomplish this, but what you would need (per jurisdiction) is political will to make it happen, perhaps starting with an independent review commission or similar, but making sure they can't just go one county or state over will be much more difficult.

> mandate body cameras

They just turn them off, or the footage gets "lost". This won't work without much broader reform (and, dare I say it, accountability).

> Probably also raise requirements for police officers

I agree.

> I haven't said those things.

No, but they clearly follow from what you have said.

> Rape and murder are existing crimes, and they should be applied equally to police officers.

Okay, but they aren't, because police enjoy broad immunity and benefit of the doubt from (and during) prosecution. How do you suggest we fix this?

Additionally, I am not sure you appreciate the magnitude of harm that can be caused by locking somebody up for months. They can lose their house, their job, their pets, their kids. They miss important life events. The payout in this case was fully justified, though, of course---since the officer himself was not held accountable---it is the taxpayer who will foot the bill.

> The whole concept of holding people "accountable" is the wrong frame. It's precisely that mindset that created this highly flawed system. I want to reduce bad things, not to feel good because people who did bad things are punished.

Holding people accountable is not the same as pursuing retributive justice for its own sake. I agree that the latter is bad and that it is pervasive in our justice system. But I don't agree that we shouldn't hold people responsible in any way for what they have done, especially if there are no mitigating factors.

You are not suggesting that "maybe we're overcriminalized". You are suggesting that we should not hold law enforcement accountable for egregious abuses of power that do real harm to real people. You think it should not be considered criminal for a police officer to put somebody in prison (under threat of bodily harm or death, by default) just because they feel like it, or whatever. You think police officers should be able to rape innocent travelers on the side of the road and face no consequences for it. You think police officers should be able to scream conflicting orders at somebody and then shoot them in the head because "they were reaching for a weapon".

Or do you not? All these things happen in America, and the officers involved almost never face meaningful consequences. Where do you draw the line, if at all?

You could make this argument about anything. We should have no laws, because they might be abused by a malicious prosecutor. Utter nonsense.

I don't think both-sidesing this is particularly appropriate. Law enforcement officers who abuse their position to harm people under false pretenses should be prosecuted as criminals, because that's what they are. This is true in any political environment and entirely distinct from the Trump administration's malicious and baseless abuse of the legal system against Trump's perceived enemies.

You are demonstrating what I think will be one of the most pernicious outcomes of the Trump administration's transformation of the Justice Department: the blurring of lines between law enforcement, criminality, and corruption as the institution is debased and public trust is lost.

Echoing others, Reynolds (House of Suns, Pushing Ice, the Revelation Space series), Stross (Accelerando, Glasshouse, and Saturn's Children/Neptune's Brood are my favorites), and Rajaniemi (the Quantum Thief trilogy) scratch roughly the same itch for me.

+1. It's insane how history has been rewritten here, though it probably helps that 95% of people don't understand what the fuck a forecast is. They translate "30% chance Trump wins" into "0% chance Trump wins" because 30 < 50. Try asking them whether they think a 45% chance of rain means it definitively isn't going to rain and hear the wind whistling through the empty space between their ears.

The thing we're worried about not understanding here is the software the LLMs write, not the LLMs themselves.

The direct analogy to automobiles would be for each automobile to be a oneoff design filled with bad and bizarre decisions, excessively redundant parts, insane routing of wires, lines, ducts, etc., generally poor serviceability, and so on. IMO the big question going forward is whether the consistent availability of LLMs can render these kinds of post-delivery issues moot (they will reliably [catch and] fix problems in the software they wrote before any real damage is caused), or whether human reliance on LLMs and abdication of understanding will just make software worse because LLMs' ability to fix their own mistakes, and the consequences thereof, generally breaks down in the same contexts/complexities where they made those mistakes in the first place.

My own observations are that moderately complex software written in the mode of "vibe coding" or "agentic engineering" tends to regress to barely-functional dogshit as features are piled on, and that once this state is reached, the teams behind it are unable to, or perhaps simply uninterested in, unfuck[ing] it. I have stopped using software that has gone down this path, not because I have some philosophical objection to it, but because it has become _literally unusable_. But you will certainly not catch me claiming to know what the future holds.

I am sure you will feel that this is missing the point of your analogy, but we would not have gotten very far with automobiles if we didn't know how they worked.

I'm going to do everything in my power to keep this dog shit technology away from my daughter for as long as I possibly can. I can imagine implementations that I might be willing to consider for educational applications, but given these companies' demonstrated and profound lack of restraint in cramming AI into literally everything they sell, I almost can't believe anyone who doesn't work for them is suggesting that we should expose children to their products in the same context where they are supposed to be learning.

Almost.

> So how the heck would a grocery store even do this? And this law is specifically around grocery stores.

Can't you just (in principle) use facial recognition cameras to determine who is approaching an item, calculate a "personalized" price and display it before they pick up the item, then make sure you match it at checkout? You could even use computer vision to only update price labels when people aren't looking at them, predict walking trajectories to pre-load prices and pre-resolve conflicts, and in ambiguous/low-confidence situations you could fall back on a default price.

This all sounds a bit like science fiction, but there is some prior art with Amazon's retail experiments, and it seems like this sort of thing is getting easier and cheaper all the time.

edit: some people have noted that you can have prices only visible viable via scanning qr codes, which makes this all much simpler. But I think you could do it with visible price labels too---you would lose some opportunities to jack up prices e.g. when multiple people are in close proximity to an item, but you could still profit in the (likely a majority of) situations where that's not the case.

I stopped using it because offensively stupid drivel from morons who paid for blue checks started getting upranked everywhere, pushing down the tweets I actually wanted to see. I have no problem talking to people with different ideologies and political views (actually I tend to enjoy it), but what the site was showing me was consistently not worth my time.

Platforms like HN are still vulnerable to astroturfing and bubble effects, but at least the operators aren't optimizing for engagement beyond [what I assume is] a fairly simple up/down ranking system based on user votes and time decay.

Moderation is another question. On HN again I don't really get the sense that there is a lot of censorship. On Reddit, on the other hand, the behavior of moderators and admins is legitimately frightening once you start paying attention.

Overall I would shut it all down forever if I could, but if I had a limited budget I would prioritize Meta's platforms and similar algorithmic infinite-scroll slop feeds. I think all they do is addict people to scrolling and epistemically poison them without giving any real value back.

> Layoffs mean a company doesn't have productive, profitable work for a set of people.

That's only one of many things layoffs can mean. In this case, Meta seems to be laying people off so that it can make a bigger bet on its AI programs (which I assume are deeply unprofitable right now) at the expense of other lines of business.

If we meet in the post-apocalyptic wasteland, but I have an android slave with a gun and you have nothing but a rusty spoon, it's going to be pretty clear who the android belongs to, and who it serves. The android also makes it likely that I will have a bunch of other nice stuff that you don't. Food and water, for instance.

This scenario is not meant to be taken literally.

No, the regulations I'm referencing have nothing to do with where (in the local sense) you can and can't fly drones. Even if I owned a thousand square miles in the middle of nowhere and wanted to fly a 75mm tinywhoop in the center of my own property, these regulations would affect me exactly the same as they would some jackass taking video of women sunbathing on a crowded beach with an 8" cinelifter. Typically local laws provide the recourse you're looking for.

Flying BVLOS is still illegal (including using goggles without a spotter) and basically nobody in the FPV hobby (non part 107) runs remoteid or registers their drones, even if they're over 250g. IDK what the AMA club field guys are doing, but they've all got FRIAs anyway.

In the FPV hobby, interest in smaller drones has increased, but I'm not really sure whether to attribute that more to regulations or just the fact that more components are available now to build smaller drones that can fly in public spaces without interfering with other people's usage, or even inside your own home. Overall it feels like the main impact of the regulations is to keep people away from the hobby entirely, since people who get into it inevitably start ignoring the more onerous rules sooner or later.

I'm expecting it to get worse, anyway. And the guys who fly DJI-style consumer drones are fucked, sub250 or not.