←back to thread

An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip

(theaiunderwriter.substack.com)
1503 points participant3 | 2 comments | 03 Apr 25 17:55 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
mlsu ◴[03 Apr 25 21:55 UTC] No.43575950[source]▶
I was really hoping that the conversation around AI art would at least be partially centered on the perhaps now dated "2008 pirate party" idea that intellectual property, the royalty system, the draconian copyright laws that we have today are deeply silly, rooted in a fiction, and used over and over again, primarily by the rich and powerful, to stifle original ideas and hold back cultural innovation.

Unfortunately, it's just the opposite. It seems most people have fully assimilated the idea that information itself must be entirely subsumed into an oppressive, proprietary, commercial apparatus. That Disney Corp can prevent you from viewing some collection of pixels, because THEY own it, and they know better than you do about the culture and communication that you are and are not allowed to experience.

It's just baffling. If they could, Disney would scan your brain to charge you a nickel every time you thought of Mickey Mouse.

replies(31): >>43576033 #>>43576035 #>>43576039 #>>43576072 #>>43576095 #>>43576129 #>>43576200 #>>43576201 #>>43576223 #>>43576381 #>>43576435 #>>43576475 #>>43576488 #>>43576594 #>>43576625 #>>43576663 #>>43576709 #>>43576768 #>>43576774 #>>43576782 #>>43576815 #>>43576826 #>>43576933 #>>43577120 #>>43577458 #>>43577553 #>>43577827 #>>43577984 #>>43578013 #>>43578038 #>>43581949 #
onlyrealcuzzo ◴[03 Apr 25 22:05 UTC] No.43576039[source]▶
> to stifle original ideas and hold back cultural innovation.

How is copyright stifling innovation?

You could not rip something off more blatantly than Gravity, which had the lawsuit dismissed entirely.

Taurus vs Stairway to Heaven, the list goes on and on and on.

You can often get away with nearly murder ripping off other people's stuff.

replies(2): >>43576098 #>>43576302 #
fragmede ◴[03 Apr 25 22:12 UTC] No.43576098[source]▶
Because it's self indulgent wankery. If I, as writer and an artist, have just the most absolutely brilliant thoughts, and write them down into a book or draw the most beautiful artwork, I can earn money off that well into my afterlife with copyright. Meanwhile the carpenter who is no less bright, can only sell the chair he's built once. In order to make money off of it, he must labor to produce a second or even a third chair. Why does one person have to work harder than the other because of the medium they chose?

Meanwhile in China, just because you invented a thing, you don't get to sit back and rest on your laurels. sipping champagne in hot tubs, because your competitor isn't staying put. He's grinding and innovating off your innovation so you'd also better keep innovating.

replies(6): >>43576110 #>>43576157 #>>43576209 #>>43576315 #>>43576452 #>>43576974 #
1. salynchnew ◴[03 Apr 25 22:38 UTC] No.43576315[source]▶
One reason so many people are amenable to the copyright argument is at least partly because of these counterarguments that posit that every writer must be an elitist or fabulously wealthy vs. instead of someone who spent X years toiling away at their craft or skill while working menial/multiple jobs.
replies(1): >>43576443 #
2. fragmede ◴[03 Apr 25 22:54 UTC] No.43576443[source]▶
yeah we should abolish copyright and make it so that creators get paid for every eyeball that's looking at your content. first, we establish a total panopticon. and then you get paid when people engage with your content, like, the system records that a person watches your movie, doesn't matter how they got a copy of your movie, but this person watches your movie, and that watch gets sent into the system and you get paid out from it. no more copyright, just horribly invasive tracking of everything everywhere. Call it copythrough.

That would never work, but like writing sci-fi.