←back to thread

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

(theaiunderwriter.substack.com)
1503 points participant3 | 5 comments | 03 Apr 25 17:55 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | 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 #
kokanee ◴[03 Apr 25 22:12 UTC] No.43576095[source]▶
The idea of open sourcing everything and nullifying patents would benefit corporations like Disney and OpenAI vastly more than it would benefit the people. The first thing that would happen is that BigCorp would eat up every interesting or useful piece of art, technology, and culture that has ever been created and monetize the life out of it.

These legal protections are needed by the people. To the Pirate Party's credit, undoing corporate personhood would be a good first step, so that we can focus on enforcing protections for the works of humans. Still, attributing those works to CEOs instead of corporations wouldn't result in much change.

replies(7): >>43576182 #>>43577047 #>>43577068 #>>43577509 #>>43577655 #>>43577930 #>>43590643 #
dcow ◴[04 Apr 25 00:28 UTC] No.43577068[source]▶
How do restaurants work, then? You can’t copyright a recipe. Instructions can’t generally be copyrighted, otherwise someone would own the fastest route from A to B and charge every person who used it. The whole idea of intellectual property gets really weird when you try to pinpoint what exactly is being owned.

I do not agree with your conjecture that big corps would win by default. Ask why would people need protection from having their work stolen when the only ones welding weaponized copyright are the corporations. People need the freedom to wield culture without restriction, not protection from someone having the same idea as them and manifesting it.

replies(6): >>43577208 #>>43577356 #>>43577372 #>>43577828 #>>43578267 #>>43587142 #
awesome_dude ◴[04 Apr 25 01:16 UTC] No.43577356[source]▶
Closed source - when was the last time your restaurant told you what was in, and how to make, your favourite dish?

What's in Coca Cola?

What are the 11 herbs and spices in Kentucky Fried Chicken?

How do I make the sauce in a Big Mac?

replies(2): >>43577420 #>>43577868 #
dcow ◴[04 Apr 25 01:28 UTC] No.43577420[source]▶
Yes, and notably the source recipe can’t be copyrighted. Trade secrets and recipes are not copyrightable. That’s the point. We have entire vastly profitable industries built around protection of trade secrets, with no copyright in play. Competing to make make the best cola flavored beverage or the best burrito is a thing. Competing to make the best rendition of Snow White, is not. What’s the rub? They don’t seem that different at all.
replies(2): >>43577577 #>>43577967 #
card_zero ◴[04 Apr 25 02:01 UTC] No.43577577[source]▶
Snow White is not the best example, there are non-Disney versions, like the one with Sigourney Weaver and the one with Chris Hemsworth.
replies(2): >>43577692 #>>43579386 #
1. dcow ◴[04 Apr 25 02:25 UTC] No.43577692[source]▶
I imagine they're licensed--the original creator or their estate had to be looped in to make them happen, and probably financially benefitted.
replies(2): >>43577787 #>>43577878 #
2. card_zero ◴[04 Apr 25 02:39 UTC] No.43577787[source]▶
The original creator of the German fairy tale?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_Snow_White_tale

I see a mention of Ovid ... copyright has probably expired.

3. slg ◴[04 Apr 25 02:54 UTC] No.43577878[source]▶
I can't explain the exact link, but your repeated and vocal pro-AI stance in this thread feels connected to the way when you got called out for a simple and inconsequential mistake that any of us could make, you immediately doubled down on it all while the truth was a single Google search away.
replies(1): >>43577954 #
4. dcow ◴[04 Apr 25 03:09 UTC] No.43577954[source]▶
We're talking about copyright in this subthread, in the context of AI. I'm not sure how a copyleft slant implies pro-ai, but whatever. There are a lot of reasons to be dubious about AI. But "AI is going to destroy human creativity and ingenuity" is not one that concerns me. And "society would be better without AI" is not an axiom I hold, so yeah I'll respond to that type of supposition when it's thrown into an otherwise interesting discussion.

I could just be wrong about Snow White's original copyright. As indicated by my use of "I imagine", no I didn't search the origins of it. I'm not seeing a big "double down" moment where I asserted that Snow White is definitely owned by Disney--that would be the cinch. In fact nothing about my reply contradicted the GGP adding that maybe Snow White isn't the best example. Why are you so bothered? Anyway, Snow White doesn't have a recent progenitor then it kinda proves the point that the world works perfectly well in the absence of copyright, and that the ability to freely remix culture is a fundamental human right. TIL that Snow White was originally a German fairytale and I'm relieved that Disney hasn't asserted copyright over it.

replies(1): >>43578188 #
5. autoexec ◴[04 Apr 25 03:59 UTC] No.43578188{3}[source]▶
Like many of the disney movies that came from fairy tales the basic story of Snow White isn't copyrighted, but some elements you'd expect in a Snow White story were added by Disney and are protected. The biggest one is the names and personalities given to the seven dwarfs (happy, grumpy, doc, etc). If you made your own snow white movie and included those characters or had them singing "Heigh-Ho" you could expect to get sued into bankruptcy by disney lawyers.