[delusional]

This is such a radical take on IP rights and AI "learning" that I can only assume you're consciously choosing to misunderstand both.

On the off chance that you are not: IP-rights does not cover "learning from" a source. What ML does is not in any way akin to human learning in methodology. When we call it learning that's an analogy. You can not argue a legal case from analogy alone.

[stale2002]

> You can not argue a legal case from analogy alone.

Yes they can because the analogy directly applies. The technical details of how a computer learns, vs a human learns doesn't really matter here, and is an irrelevant difference.

The reason why the analogy directly applies is because in both cases it is about how IP cannot really control how someone uses the IP.

Just like how IP laws cannot prevent you from listening to music while standing on your head, it also cannot prevent you from training your models on it (while also standing on your head, lets say!).

Instead, IP laws only prevents the publishing of copies of the IP.

So the point and the analogy stands.

[delusional]

I don't know what to tell you. You will find no judge willing to entertain your analogy without you justifying why it's useful in the particular case. You are going to have to explain the difference, and you are going to have to argue why those differences don't matter.

[stale2002]

> You will find no judge willing to entertain your

Yes they will. Judges have already ruled that you can't just ban people from using your IP, like by standing on your head.

It is only publishing someone else's IP that is disallowed.

This is copyright law 101.

You can it seriously be arguing that an IP owner could ban someone from listening to their music while standing on one's head, for example.

[delusional]

Do you have a case where a defendant tried to argue that being upside down protected him from a copyright claim? You claim that they have decided it, can you cite that decision?

[stale2002]

You don't understand. The point here is that a copyright holder does not have infinite ability to prevent other people from using their IP.

Instead, they can only prevent copies from being distributed.

[delusional]

You're taking a much more narrow view of this discussion than I am. When I say IP rights I'm not talking about copyright specifically (which does not just cover creating copies, but also performances, adaptations, and distribution) but rather about the broad class of property rights to intangible "ideas". Trademarks, patents and the like are usually, and in my argument specifically, also included under that umbrella.

Even if we limit our area of consideration to just Copyright, you're just wrong. As the world currently stands, you probably get your music from a streaming service. That streaming service doesn't grant you the right to copy, perform, or adapt the music you listen to, they extend you a limited license. If you are in violation of that license, they likely reserve the right to terminate your access to the music. If that license said you weren't allowed to be upside down then standing on your head would allow them to prevent you listening. It does not matter that Copyright doesn't explicitly mention "listening to music while upside down" because your use is not mediated by copyright, but by the contract you signed.

Copyright does not govern how those individual contracts are formulated. We have Freedom of Contract in most of the western world. It provides a framework by which that contract even makes sense (they have property you even care to license with a contract), and a remedies should you violate it.

[ImPleadThe5th]

It makes me so uncomfortable that the relatively informed people on HN seem to equate a human learning to AI learning.

[andy99]

Care to elaborate?

[constantcrying]

I believe that a creator has no right to dictate what other people do with his creations.

I thought this was the most common anti-IP sentiment.

[6P58r3MXJSLi]

Isn't it the opposite: the author is the only one who has the right to dictate what other people do with his creation?

An extreme example: I do not want my code to be used in weapons guidance systems. Am I not expressing my rights as an author?

[constantcrying]

I am against IP, so you should not have that right.

[6P58r3MXJSLi]

I am against corporations profiting from others people works, for free.

If that was not allowed, if people could only use my work for no profit purposes, I agree.

That's what CC (creative commons) is for, though.

I am also in favour of people "remixing" and even making money out of it, but the intent it's paramount to me.

As a long time copyleft activist, I do not understand what limiting authors rights brings to the table, in your opinion.

More than once I contacted the author of some work I liked and they gave me free license to use it, no questions asked (after explaining what I would use it for).

IMO basic cooperation between good willing people goes a long way, without stripping authors of their rights.

Edit: typos

[constantcrying]

>As a long time copyleft activist, I do not understand what limiting authors rights brings to the table, in your opinion.

IP is nonsense. It is putting an ownership over an idea, but ideas aren't objects. You can not steal or destroy an idea, giving ownership rights to ideas is absurd.

If you think IP should not exist then creative output is free to use by everyone and of course corporations are also free to profit from it.

[6P58r3MXJSLi]

> It is putting an ownership

over an artifact

You can copy the idea though

And I say copy because before the author made it in the form of an artifact, you didn't know it could be done, or you could have done it on your own.

I can draw ocean waves, nobody owns ocean waves

But if I cooy verbatim hokusai ocean waves, it's mehhhhhhhh

I'm a ripoff loser and should be punished for doing it

Edit: but I like your closing sentence.

Free for all to use it as they see fit is an interesting thought, however I think that imbalance of the means of production will always make the corporations the ultimate beneficiaries, so we should also rethink how our economic system works.

For example: if I could copy the avengers, people would say "it's a cheap copy of Disney's original" and I would hardly make any money out of it.

It's an interesting POV nonetheless.

[bobsomers]

> IP is nonsense. It is putting an ownership over an idea, but ideas aren't objects. You can not steal or destroy an idea, giving ownership rights to ideas is absurd.

IP isn't ownership over an idea, it's ownership over a specific artifact.

You cannot copyright the idea of painting or the ideas contained within a specific painting, but you can copyright this specific painting because this specific painting is an artifact.

[throwway120385]

Or, even more extreme: I don't want anyone to view or read my work, at all.

[SamBam]

"no right to dictate what other people do with his creations" seems a little radical -- i.e., you don't believe copyright should exist?

Do you think a movie's creator can dictate that I'm not allowed to use a pirated version of a movie to display for 100% profit at my 10,000 AMC movie theaters? Or a book's creator can dictate that I'm not allowed to copy their book, put my name on it, and sell it on Amazon for half-price?

If you agree that a creator can do those things, then you're already in a gray area between "they can dictate everything" and "they have no rights." At that point, you're arguing over the precise location of the line.

[constantcrying]

>you don't believe copyright should exist?

Yes. It should not. I think that was very clear when I said I was against intellectual property, not for it being more limited.

>Do you think a movie's creator can dictate that I'm not allowed to use a pirated version of a movie to display for 100% profit at my 10,000 AMC movie theaters? Or a book's creator can dictate that I'm not allowed to copy their book, put my name on it, and sell it on Amazon for half-price?

I do not care at all.

[vunderba]

I must be misreading this. Are you saying the following is/should be okay/ethically okay/perfectly legal:

Author A spends a year writing a fiction book. They are not well known in the industry. They publish the book, it sells very few copies (perhaps none at all).

Person B (a well known Instagram influencer with tens of thousands of followers) downloads a copy of your book. Replaces your name with their name as the author, and promotes it as a book they've finished writing. Goes on to sell at a very profitable rate.

If your answer is NO this should be illegal, what about if Person B searches/replaces all definite articles with indefinite articles, or changes all the proper nouns to begin with "schmla"? Where do we draw the line?

If your answer is YES, then my gut instinct tells me you are neither a writer, composer, or creator in any meaningful sense of the word.

[daeken]

I wrote a fiction book, which has sold virtually nothing (maybe $50 gross, against an out-of-pocket cost of ~$4k). Both of these would piss me off if they happened to me or my author friends; I also don't think they should be illegal.

I am an author, a digital artist, a programmer, and an extremely amateur musician. None of those things have demonstrated to me why copyright law is necessary, a net positive for the world, or ethical.

[voidhorse]

Why? You are holding a belief that works directly against your own self interest.

If it's a principles thing—I'd ask, what is good in this principle? What is the good in someone else taking credit for your work? What is the good in someone else divesting you of wages you could use to live or support further creative acts? What is the good in any of that whatsoever? What real harm is the protection afforded you by the IP causing? If you worry underprivileged people can't access your work, you can give it to them for free as the IP holder. I simply cannot fathom any reasonable abstract position in which not having IP would be good for you. Sure, if you hand over your IP to someone else, I could see wanting IP abolished, but that's on you. Thant's the same as the parent scenario only you actually got a say in the matter at least.

[constantcrying]

Yes, I think it is okay.

I think a very interesting case study would be YouTube. This exact scenario happens there regularly, with various consequences for the creators.

[6510]

What are your thoughts on peoples identity and trade marks?

[EvanAnderson]

Not the OP, but I have some feelings about that. The limits on trademark law are much more fair, in terms of the balance afforded to the public and the limited monopoly granted to the rightsholder. Trademark law can be abused, for sure, but it hasn't been used in the same abusive way as copyright law, nor has it expanded to be functionally infinite and all-encompassing.

[constantcrying]

I think the creative part of trademarks should be free to use, e.g. a film can have Coca-Cola bottles or some corporate mascot. But if you are commiting fraud, e.g. by labeling a Coca-Cola bottle, not from the company, as such then this should be forbidden. Not on the basis that Coca-Cola has any right to be the only ones using their logo, but that customers have a right to not be defrauded and make choices from whom they buy. As long as the trademark is not used to defraud people it can be used however people want.

Someone's identity, e.g. their likeness and identification aren't just ideas. They actually physically exist. (I assume here that by identity you don't mean how they view themselves). For identities I think it is very important to consider publication. If you publish something you have no right to tell others what to do with it. An actor in a movie has no right to tell someone that their fan cut of a movie is not allowed to exist. On the other hand, as long as you do not publish some part of your identity you should have a right to it. If you are recognizable on a photo that you do not want to have published it should not be published.

To make it short I essentially agree with the GDPR, with the exception of being able to retract consent, but I do not believe it invalidates my stance on IP in any way. Your likeness is not an immaterial idea derived from a creative process, neither is your own house address. You should be allowed to publish it and by publishing it, that publication is no longer yours to own and control.

[delusional]

I'm glad I elaborated. A complete dismissal of all IP-rights is a very fringe very radical position. Most people have a more nuanced IP-rights view about which IP-rights ought to be protected and for how long.

You'll find many more people of the opinion that authors life+70 years is too long, than you will dismissing it entirely.

[caconym_]

In other words, (for instance) you believe in the right of massive corporations who control the lion's share of consumer distribution channels to, on an ongoing basis, scrape all authored content that is made publicly available in any form (paid or not) and sell it in a heavily discounted form, without the permission of authors and other rights holders and with no compensation to them, while freezing out the "official" published versions from their distribution channels entirely. More generally, you believe that creators should create for free, and that massive moneyed and powerful interests should reap the profits, even while those same creators toil in the mines to support their passions which do evidently have real value, though it is denied to them.

You think this will make the world better? For whom? Or worse, for whom? Or you place the highest importance on having a maximalist viewpoint that simply cannot be argued with, because being unassailably right in an abstract rhetorical framing is most important to you? Or you crave the elegance of such a position, reality and utility notwithstanding? Or you feel the need to rationalize your otherwise unfounded "belief" that piracy and/or training AI on protected IP should be allowed because you like it and are involved with it yourself? Or you think ASI is going to completely transform the world tomorrow, and whether we get Culture-style luxury gay space communism or something far darker, none of this will matter so we should eat, drink, and be merry today? Or some hybrid of that and a belief that we should actively strive toward and enable such a transition, and IP law stands in its way?

What is it? I've seen some version of all of these and frankly they are all childish nonsense (usually espoused by actual children). Are you a new species?

[EvanAnderson]

Not the OP, but I believe very strongly that once an idea has been expressed it should be free for others to build upon and share. That's how ideas work, naturally.

All of human culture is derivative. The current legal regime stifles human expression and makes it impossible for creations to ever be shared in a reasonable human timescale.

To state it in an arguably hyperbolic manner: The "moneyed interests" you're railing against exist because of the current scheme of "intellectual property". They reap virtually all the benefits of human intellectual toil in the system already. Wiping away their stranglehold on the market would be a good thing for creators. Taking away the legal framework their existence is predicated upon would do that.

The copyright industry's influence on social norms, including the massive shift of the social contract in favor of their interests ( functionally infinite copyright terms, attacks of fair use, plundering the public domain to sell it back, works being lost forever because they are "orphaned", etc), all seems natural to you because they want it to be that way. The concept of someone "owning" an idea, which seems perfectly normal to you, was taught to you by people who want the world to be that way, not because it's some natural law. You've been conditioned to believe it your entire life.

I would prefer a fairer system to burning it all down, but the needle has moved so far away from fair that burning it all down seems pretty satisfying.

[caconym_]

> Not the OP, but I believe very strongly that once an idea has been expressed it should be free for others to build upon and share. That's how ideas work, naturally.

> All of human culture is derivative. The current legal regime stifles human expression and makes it impossible for creations to ever be shared in a reasonable human timescale.

In the context of copyright law, this is absurd. Fair use exists and it generally isn't even required to "allow" artistic and cultural influence to propagate. If I want to write a sci-fi novel that is heavily influenced and arguably even derivative of my favorite work of some other author, I am completely free to do so---i just can't copy it wholesale. Established fair use doctrine is certainly subject to criticism and future reform, but in a much more nuanced scope than you are applying here.

If you're talking about patents, that's a different conversation. But based on context, that isn't the conversation we're having here.

> burning it all down

Generically, this is another common suggestion from people with naive viewpoints and little or no relevant experience and/or exposure. Notably, people said that about both of Trump's presidential terms to date. I will let you make up your own mind on how that is going for us.

edit: I should also mention that literally every working artist I've talked to about the prospect of abolishing IP law is vehemently opposed to it.

[EvanAnderson]

I wish I'd written "...derivative creations..." in that sentence, but heat-of-the-moment being what it was I did not. Having said that, I believe the scope of an infringing derivative work is a lot broader than you are suggesting.

Finding success defending a derivative work on the basis of fair use, particularly if the derivative work is itself financially successful and derivative of a work "owned" by a rights holder with deep pockets, doesn't seem to be very easy in today's legal climate. It certainly doesn't take "wholesale" copying to attract the attention of a rights holder, either. Heck, with the music industry it doesn't take any copying at all to end up losing a lawsuit.

I'll cite the Tolkien or Marvin Gaye estates as good examples among many. I, too, believe it's a ton more nuanced than how you're characterizing it.

> Generically, this is another common suggestion from people with naive viewpoints and little or no relevant experience and/or exposure.

I said "I would prefer a fairer system to burning it all down...". I even qualified my writing as hyperbolic. It seems disingenuous that you'd choose to belittle and make unfavorable comparisons, given both of those statements.

Characterize my viewpoint how you will, but my viewpoint isn't "burning it all down". I will admit that indulging in a little daydreaming about morally repugnant rights hoarders getting what they deserve is fun, but it isn't realistic or productive for society. A fairer system, enabled by shorter copyright terms and better handling of "orphan" works, would be the right thing and what I wish for. Just like I said.

> I should also mention that literally every working artist I've talked to about the prospect of abolishing IP law is vehemently opposed to it.

Well, yeah-- of course they would be opposed to such a vast, sweeping change. It would be madness if they weren't.

The interesting conversation to have with working artists would be about reducing copyright terms, and how that would both "cost" them in potential lost revenue but at the same time free them from the specter of potential litigation and, at the same time, open up vast tracts of public domain work they could build upon.

[caconym_]

If you don't actually think IP law should be outright abolished, your viewpoint is of a totally different species than that of the person I originally replied to, and we probably agree on more than we disagree on---in particular that the system is arguably biased toward, and certainly heavily abused by, moneyed actors.

Believe it or not, there really are people who think literally deleting all of IP law is the right thing to do, and it is my honest belief that my first comment in this topic is in reply to one of those people. I appreciate your clarification of your viewpoint (and the appeal of a fantasy in which we Stick It To The Man by cutting off the hand that grips Mickey Mouse and other beloved IPs by the throat), but I hope you can see why I read your comment as I did, especially in the context of what I was replying to.

> The interesting conversation to have with working artists would be about reducing copyright terms, and how that would both "cost" them in potential lost revenue but at the same time free them from the specter of potential litigation and, at the same time, open up vast tracts of public domain work they could build upon.

I am 100% in favor of reducing copyright terms. I'm not sure I've ever talked to somebody who isn't—I suspect I'd have to talk to a corporation-as-person to find that viewpoint in the wild.

[constantcrying]

>In other words, (for instance) you believe in the right of massive corporations who control the lion's share of consumer distribution channels to, on an ongoing basis, scrape all authored content that is made publicly available in any form (paid or not) and sell it in a heavily discounted form, without the permission of authors and other rights holders and with no compensation to them, while freezing out the "official" published versions from their distribution channels entirely. More generally, you believe that creators should create for free, and that massive moneyed and powerful interests should reap the profits, even while those same creators toil in the mines to support their passions which do evidently have real value, though it is denied to them.

Yes.

(Obviously there is zero point in corporations doing this as costs are near zero and competition for this infinite. Right now almost all art is available for free, it is just illegal.)

>You think this will make the world better? For whom? Or worse, for whom? Or you place the highest importance on having a maximalist viewpoint that simply cannot be argued with, because being unassailably right in an abstract rhetorical framing is most important to you? Or you crave the elegance of such a position, reality and utility notwithstanding? Or you feel the need to rationalize your otherwise unfounded "belief" that piracy and/or training AI on protected IP should be allowed because you like it and are involved with it yourself? Or you think ASI is going to completely transform the world tomorrow, and whether we get Culture-style luxury gay space communism or something far darker, none of this will matter so we should eat, drink, and be merry today? Or some hybrid of that and a belief that we should actively strive toward and enable such a transition, and IP law stands in its way?

I think it will marginally improve the world. I am not training any AIs though.

Could you consider what abolishing IP laws would do to the average YouTuber. Exactly nothing. Their content is available for free, they support themselves without selling their art directly. Loosing rights to their art would have zero impact on them, as their monetization works without it. Sponsoring, direct support, advertisement is enough to make many of them wealthy.

[caconym_]

Thank you for affirming your position!

> Obviously there is zero point in corporations doing this as costs are near zero and competition for this infinite. Right now almost all art is available for free, it is just illegal.

This is incredibly naive. You grossly underestimate the grip massive media corporations with essentially unlimited marketing budgets and total control over mainstream distribution channels have over how the vast majority of consumers consume media. And, to whatever extent you think piracy being legal will change that, either way you've completely destroyed individual creators' ability to even partially support themselves with their work, unless...

> Could you consider what abolishing IP laws would do to the average YouTuber. Exactly nothing. Their content is available for free, they support themselves without selling their art directly. Loosing rights to their art would have zero impact on them, as their monetization works without it. Sponsoring, direct support, advertisement is enough to make many of them wealthy.

...Unless you force them all to be social media personalities and marketers first. Unless you think YouTube and its ilk can carry art and culture forward alone (as "content", of course). Unless you want to live in a world where art of original substance is no longer produced, a hall of mirrors in which YouTubers endlessly inter-react and beef and soy face. You may very well think that sounds great, but I think it sounds fucking terrible.

[constantcrying]

>...Unless you force them all to be social media personalities and marketers first. Unless you think YouTube and its ilk can carry art and culture forward alone (as "content", of course).

How much do you think I am paying an artist hen listening to their songs on Spotify 1000 times? Every album they ever made, dozens of times. The answer will surprise you!

Already every single musician has to be a personality and marketer. There is no other way to make money. You can not finance yourself by the rights to your music, right now.

Only a very select group of artists has any kind of real revenue from the rights over their music. The rest is already using other channels to profit, which are not protected by IP.

[caconym_]

As much as you might think cherrypicking examples like Spotify (and characterizing them poorly, besides) supports your point, I don't think it's going to be practical to enumerate every single source of sales, royalties, and other fees paid to artists in aggregate.

So maybe you'd like to state, for the record, that all those sales, royalties, and other fees—in aggregate—are so small as to be meaningless and insignificant to those who receive them? It's staggeringly wrong, but at least then we'll know where we stand.

[visarga]

> What ML does is not in any way akin to human learning in methodology. When we call it learning that's an analogy.

Of course it's different, but if we look closely, it is not copying. The model itself is smaller, sometimes 1000x smaller, than the training set. Being made of billions of examples, the impact of any one of them is very small (de minimis).

If you try to replicate something closely with AI it fails. If regurgitation was a huge problem we'd see lots of lawsuits on output, but we see most suits for input (training). That means authors can't identify cases of infringement in the outputs.

[delusional]

I'm not sure I agree that most suits are on input. Most of the ones I've read have been related to the output of a model. Early worried about CoPilot were about its tendency to regurgitate code verbatim. The WaPo suit was about verbatim output of segments of their articles.