←back to thread

US Copyright Office found AI companies breach copyright. Its boss was fired

(www.theregister.com)
451 points croes | 1 comments | 12 May 25 09:49 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
brador ◴[12 May 25 13:02 UTC] No.43962450[source]▶
Lifetime for human copyright, 20 years for corporate copyright. That’s the golden zone.
replies(2): >>43962626 #>>43962923 #
Zambyte ◴[12 May 25 13:23 UTC] No.43962626[source]▶
Zero (0) years for corporate copyright, zero (0) years for human copyright is the golden zone in my book.
replies(2): >>43962681 #>>43963025 #
umanwizard ◴[12 May 25 13:31 UTC] No.43962681[source]▶
Why?
replies(2): >>43962773 #>>43962937 #
whamlastxmas ◴[12 May 25 13:55 UTC] No.43962937[source]▶
Because the concept of owning an idea is really gross. Copyright means I can’t write about whatever I want in my own home even if I never distribute it or no one ever sees it. I’m breaking the law by privately writing Harry Potter fanfic in my journal or whatever. Copyright is supposed to be about encouraging intangibles, and the reality is that it only massively stifles it
replies(4): >>43963076 #>>43963326 #>>43963409 #>>43963555 #
1. redwall_hp ◴[12 May 25 14:07 UTC] No.43963076[source]▶
Whole genres of music are based entirely on sampling, and they got screwed by copyright law as it evolved over the 90s and 2000s. Now only people with a sufficiently sized business backing them can truly participate, or they're stuck licensing things on Splice.

And that's not even touching the spurious lawsuits about musical similarity. That's what musicians call a genre...

It makes some sense for a very short term literal right to reproduction of a singular work, but any time the concept of derivative works comes into play, it's just a bizarrely dystopian suppression of art, under the supposition that art is commercial activity rather than an innate part of humanity.