←back to thread

1503 points participant3 | 5 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
djoldman ◴[] No.43577414[source]
I don't condone or endorse breaking any laws.

That said, trademark laws like life of the author + 95 years are absolutely absurd. The ONLY reason to have any law prohibiting unlicensed copying of intangible property is to incentivize the creation of intangible property. The reasoning being that if you don't allow people to exclude 3rd party copying, then the primary party will assumedly not receive compensation for their creation and they'll never create.

Even in the case where the above is assumed true, the length of time that a protection should be afforded should be no more than the length of time necessary to ensure that creators create.

There are approximately zero people who decide they'll create something if they're protected for 95 years after their death but won't if it's 94 years. I wouldn't be surprised if it was the same for 1 year past death.

For that matter, this argument extends to other criminal penalties, but that's a whole other subject.

replies(18): >>43578724 #>>43578771 #>>43578899 #>>43578932 #>>43578976 #>>43579090 #>>43579150 #>>43579222 #>>43579392 #>>43579505 #>>43581686 #>>43583556 #>>43583637 #>>43583944 #>>43584544 #>>43585156 #>>43588217 #>>43653146 #
csallen ◴[] No.43578771[source]
> The ONLY reason to have any law prohibiting unlicensed copying of intangible property is to incentivize the creation of intangible property.

That was the original purpose. It has since been coopted by people and corporations whose incentives are to make as much money as possible by monopolizing valuable intangible "property" for as long as they can.

And the chief strategic move these people have made is to convince the average person that ideas are in fact property. That the first person to think something and write it down rightfully "owns" that thought, and that others who express it or share it are not merely infringing copyright, they are "stealing."

This plan has largely worked, and now the average person speaks and thinks in these terms, and feels it in their bones.

replies(6): >>43579752 #>>43579884 #>>43579976 #>>43582633 #>>43584406 #>>43588468 #
jimmaswell ◴[] No.43584406[source]
We were close to your viewpoint being the popular one, but sadly many (most?) independent content creators are so overtaken by fear of AI that they've done a 180. The same people who learned by tracing references to sell fanart of a copyrighted franchise (not complaining, I spend thousands on such things) accuse AI of stealing when it glances at their own work. We're entering a new golden age of creative opportunity and they respond by switching sides to the philosophy of intellectual property championed by Disney and Oracle (except for those companies' ironic use of AI themselves..).
replies(3): >>43584782 #>>43585099 #>>43585352 #
egypturnash ◴[] No.43585352[source]
We would prefer a world where we can use the skills we have spent a lifetime honing without having to compete with some asshole taking everything we’ve shared and stuffing it into a machine that spits out soulless clones of our work without any acknowledgment of our existence.
replies(1): >>43585395 #
1. jimmaswell ◴[] No.43585395[source]
This could a be verbatim quote from a seamstress talking about looms.
replies(2): >>43585678 #>>43586840 #
2. jakeydus ◴[] No.43585678[source]
You know, the more AI can do the more I understand the Luddites.
3. egypturnash ◴[] No.43586840[source]
Yes. The Luddites had some pretty good ideas about resisting the centralization of profits into the hands of the people who owned the machines who took over their jobs, really. So did the French Revolution.
replies(1): >>43590733 #
4. satvikpendem ◴[] No.43590733[source]
Not really, the machines these days are owned by everyone, the type of labor is not the same as it was, as anyone can own a laptop as a means of production. As an aside, I have seen your comments quite a bit on AI art related threads over the past few years, especially while I see close to none on ones related to AI code related ones, and I always thought there was some hypocrisy there, which actually led me to the theory that it is not the tech that threatens people so, but the economic incentives behind them, as you state in this comment.

That is why I would advocate for people to support open source AI that at least does not drive profits to any one entity, but people have been so knee-jerk reactive to anything AI over the years that they do not understand that more regulation only means that big tech, with the means to buy licenses to content, would essentially be the arbiters to new popular culture, ironically screwing creators even more in the process; think Disney, but 10x more powerful.

replies(1): >>43639271 #
5. egypturnash ◴[] No.43639271{3}[source]
I'm an artist, not a programmer. I'm not gonna be trying to use AI to code anything. I don't see any hypocrisy here.

I do however greatly enjoy pointing and laughing when I see programmers expressing unhappiness with the prospect of their life shifting from "actually programming" to "endless review of AI slopcode". Does that sound like fun? Is that related in any way to the joy of creation that made you decide to be a programmer? Probably not! But you'll be so productive! You'll be able to work four times harder in the same time, for the same pay! Or less, since obviously the real work is being done by the AI now. Does that possibility make you feel unhappy and sad? Good. Now you know how I feel.

Open-source AI isn't gonna do shit to keep from devaluing my craft. It'll just make it worse. I am no fan of the Mouse but if I can get them to fight all these motherfuckers with a ton of VC investment who want to eliminate every creative job and leave me with no way to scrape out a living then I'm cheering for Disney.