←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: 0.201s | source
Show context
djoldman ◴[04 Apr 25 01:28 UTC] 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 #
kazinator ◴[04 Apr 25 06:23 UTC] No.43578899[source]▶
New rule: you get to keep your belongings for 20 years and that's it. Then they are taken away. Every dollar you made twenty or more years ago, every asset you acquired, gone.

That oughtta be enough to incentivize people to work and build their wealth.

Anything more than that is unnecessary.

replies(5): >>43579064 #>>43579114 #>>43579264 #>>43583164 #>>43594509 #
ars ◴[04 Apr 25 07:25 UTC] No.43579264[source]▶
Intellectual property does not belong to you. The entire concept of "owning" intellectual property is a very recent thing.

So how about we go back to how it used to be and just remove this entire concept.

You can own things you can't own an idea.

replies(2): >>43580202 #>>43585450 #
kazinator ◴[04 Apr 25 17:29 UTC] No.43585450[source]▶
Your copyrighted work just has to be an original expression, not derived from someone else's work. It doesn't have to contain original ideas.

Patents are for ideas. Patents do in fact expire far faster than copyrights in the USA. The main problem with patents is patent trolling in the area of software patents.

replies(1): >>43586103 #
ars ◴[04 Apr 25 18:27 UTC] No.43586103[source]▶
It would be a lot easier to defend copyright if it expired quicker.
replies(1): >>43587708 #
kazinator ◴[04 Apr 25 21:23 UTC] No.43587708[source]▶
I used to be against copyright, but with the rise of scum like Altman, I'm going all in. Copyright should last forever, as long as the ownership is handed down through inheritance or other transactions and not assigned to the public domain.
replies(2): >>43588186 #>>43594516 #
ars ◴[04 Apr 25 22:08 UTC] No.43588186[source]▶
Why should someone be able to charge multiple times for the same thing?

That entire concept is a legal fiction, and the compromise was to make it last only a limited time.

replies(1): >>43589157 #
1. kazinator ◴[05 Apr 25 00:26 UTC] No.43589157[source]▶
Because then the creative individual, in order to sustain themselves, will basically need an ultra rich patron who pays a lot of money for just the one copy or one performance. You know, basically how things worked before printing presses and recorded music.

Most copyrighted works don't make any money. Those that do go through a period where they sell a bunch of copies and after that it's just a trickle, if anything.

Why should you be able to charge every separate individual who comes to your concert? Same per seat price whether the place is filled to the back row or to the second row!

If you rent something, you're getting charged multiple times for exactly the same thing. You just paid for one month of staying in an apartment, now they want you to pay for a month again! The mere passage of time is churning out month after month. They are all the same, but you get charged! Same with power tools, cars and everything else rentable. Fifty people before you rented this hammer drill from Home Depot, but you still have to pay the same as they did.

Anyway, suppose that one should not be able to charge multiple times for the same thing. Then, fine, let the purveyor of an AI service also not be allowed to charge for their algorithmic rehashing of someone else's works.

I'm for getting rid of all forms of rent. But it has to be all: no cherry picking. Don't take away renting from one, while allowing another one to sell unlimited copies of a work. Or vice versa.