←back to thread

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

(theaiunderwriter.substack.com)
1503 points participant3 | 1 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 #
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 #
api ◴[04 Apr 25 01:20 UTC] No.43577372[source]▶
A restaurant is a small manufacturing facility that produces a physical product. It’s not the same at all.
replies(1): >>43577485 #
dcow ◴[04 Apr 25 01:40 UTC] No.43577485[source]▶
An artist is a small manufacturing facility that produces a physical (canvas, print, mp3, etc) product, no?

What is different about the production of Micky Mouse cartoons? Why is it normal for industries to compete in manufacturing of physical product, but as soon as you can apply copyright, now you exclusively have rights to control anything that produces a similar result?

replies(2): >>43577501 #>>43577803 #
RHSeeger ◴[04 Apr 25 02:43 UTC] No.43577803{4}[source]▶
It looks like you're being purposefully ridiculous. There is an obvious difference between the two; cost of reproduction. For something with a cost of reproduction near zero (book, music, art, etc), IP restrictions matter. For something like a restaurant, factory, etc; the cost of reproduction is high.
replies(1): >>43577914 #
1. dcow ◴[04 Apr 25 03:00 UTC] No.43577914{5}[source]▶
It's not obvious at all! You are citing the only difference that typically comes up. A quesadilla is beyond trivial to reproduce and most people have the ingredients readily available. 3D printers make it trivial to reproduce things that would have been obviously hard to reproduce a few years ago. A book is hard to reproduce if it's not in digital form. Is MIDI a song or a set of instructions? Source code is easy to copy but hard to reproduce. Source code is just a recipe telling a compiler what to do. And we've already established that recipes aren't copyrightable because it was "so obvious" at the time copyright was established that you shouldn't be able to copyright the creative process.