[puppycodes]

i really dont get this and i personally beleive the world would be a better place without IP in any form.

But also no one is selling "your book", the product is completely different in literally every conceivable way.

you have never (and no one ever should) own words arranged in a certain way. You own the right to sell a book. Not the words themselves.

meta does bad things and im not a fan, but this really pales in comparison.

[bernb]

Put 10,000 hours into writing a book. Watch somebody with more resources or media coverage take full credits for it and/or make money instead of yourself. Copyright is a good thing. Same principle applies to the core of similar laws.

[bigyabai]

Copyright can be a good or bad thing, it doesn't stop businesses from arguing fair/transformative use, and winning in many cases: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors_Guild,_Inc._v._Google,....

[puppycodes]

but literally no one is doing that in this scenario so... huh? Also the number of hours you put into a thing does not make it valuable.

[pllbnk]

No one is taking credit, but no one is giving credit either, which is nearly the same.

Also, to your second point, when you (speaking of any regular person) put in the number of hours, it might not be valuable. When the domain expert puts in the same number of hours, it might be very valuable.

[puppycodes]

Sorry but no... theres no coorelation between value and lets call it effort over time. If a hole expert spends 10,000 hours digging a hole your left with... a hole.

If you have ever made an artwork you will know this fact in your bones.

Does a furniture maker credit the lumber yard?

[zzo38computer]

I agree with you. I think that copyright is bad, and patents is also bad.

It is a different issue if they steal your private data or your power (I mean the electrical power for the computers, in case that isn't already clear).

Making copies of published books, music, etc (and doing what you want with them) is not the bad things.

[bernb]

How would you replace the incentives for R&D for medication, for example? That often costs billions of dollars.

[puppycodes]

I take deep issue with this argument as if improving the lives of others isn't enough of an incentive. Ask most scientists whether they got into it for the money and you'll have your answer.

[card_zero]

Well, if you own copyright for a song, you can claim licensing fees for any public performance of those lyrics.

I wonder if an equivalent to Performance Rights Organizations will emerge as a channel for LLM publishers (so to speak) to pay fees.

[puppycodes]

and that is equally atrocious and should be eliminated from a society that wants to share ideas freely.

Idk if your in the US but you also massively oversimplify in your example, copyright law is waaaaaaaay more complex than that and it would take a set of special circumstances way beyond doing what you say it siphon money from an infringment claim

[philistine]

Copyright law is enshrined in a knotted web of trade deals across the world, meaning it will never change for as long as anyone on this board is alive. It's so tiring on here with the constant copyright law shouldn't exist. We know! How do we get rid of it? What's your argument for everyone to break all the world's trade deals to give you this one thing that would unmake our whole artistic sector?

[puppycodes]

I have a more positive outlook on the future as we have seen the rise of open source and collaborative community projects. But yes we might have to enter a post money star trek universe first but hey a girl can dream.

[MattPalmer1086]

A world without any legal protection for novel ideas or creative works is a world that does not share them freely.

That is why copyright law was originally created. Without it, there is little incentive to invest in the creation or disemmination of the works in the first place.

Edit: I am not defending the current form of those laws. The time period is too long for one thing. But removing it entirely would be a bad idea, IMHO.

[puppycodes]

I disagree. But I think we are operating on a different premise. My critique is wider and includes capitalism as a system, too much to cover in a reply on HN but idealogically it boils down to entitled thinking where people feel they are the protagonist and somehow "unique" among all other human beings and then expect to become a landlord for ideas. There are lots of ways to create capital and profit without being a patent troll.

[MattPalmer1086]

Granted, if we were operating in an entirely different economic system, my points may be moot.

I don't much see the need for our current copyright or patent law in a post-scarcity Star-Trek society, for example. Although even then, I still don't discount the need for some legal protection on creative works (e.g. the right to be known as the author).

[puppycodes]

There is always some middle ground that makes sense with things like this and i'm sure there are exceptions like there are to any rule but i'm just trying to dream a little bigger...

at the same time point out that people love to apply the idea of physical objects to a digital world and I wish they would just stop trying to put the square peg in the round hole.

[card_zero]

Yes, of course. I struggle to have an opinion here since I don't like either side in this fight, but I eventually squeezed one out, and there it is.

[bernb]

Copyright doesn't apply to ideas. It applies to concrete works.