AI/LLMs AI art bans are going to ruin small 3rd party creators

[Bill Zebub]

Perhaps if you weren't so quick to try and ask Claude what it meant, you would actually read the introduction.

You're making a lot of assumptions about what other people have and have not done.

Maybe just add your own observations without doing that?

 

[FrogReaver]

I don't understand what you are even trying to say here.

I'm not surprised.

It's basically brought into the open very clearly, and is so at multiple other junctures in the piece. Acting like it's somehow hidden in a footnote misses that it's brought up and a focus in other places where the problems in trying to implement it into modern law. Like, this is not a hidden thing, but something fully discussed... if you, y'know, read a little bit longer.

My point isn't whether it's hidden in a footnote or note, it's the footnote explains the full context and while on the surface some of that terminology may seem like it agrees with your stance, when you actually dig into what is really meant by those terms, that notion is completely discredited.

It's basically the same pattern I observed earlier, where you never articulated nor seemed to comprehend the difference between natural rights and common-law rights.

 

[Bill Zebub]

It's basically the same pattern I observed earlier, where you never articulated nor seemed to comprehend the difference between natural rights and common-law rights.

The whole paper, as far as I can tell...I admit I'm kind of glazing over...is basically an argument for what she thinks the law should do, which is treat IP as real property, but she also acknowledges that it hasn't in the past.

 

[Justice and Rule]

You're making a lot of assumptions about what other people have and have not done.

Maybe just add your own observations without doing that?

Am I making an assumption when your response to me was citing what Claude said?

I'm not surprised.

My point isn't whether it's hidden in a footnote or note, it's the footnote explains the full context and while on the surface some of that terminology may seem like it agrees with your stance, when you actually dig into what is really meant by those terms, that notion is completely discredited.

It's basically the same pattern I observed earlier, where you never articulated nor seemed to comprehend the difference between natural rights and common-law rights.

I didn't say that it agreed with my stance. Once again, you are so focused on "winning an argument" that you completely misunderstand why I said one should read it: I found it interesting. It's an engagement with the idea of your "literary property" as a natural right, how that would function, what are the potentially problematic interactions, and how it could be brought about. It's a very interesting piece, but here you are trying to act like it is hiding something that is rather bluntly exclaimed and explained in the piece as being "hidden away" in a footnote. I like it because it has more cites and sources about the topic, interesting quotes, and ideas on how it would actually function.

Again, I assert that you don't seem to have read the piece because you clearly don't understand what the author set forth in the introduction.

The whole paper, as far as I can tell...I admit I'm kind of glazing over...is basically an argument for what she thinks the law should do, which is treat IP as real property, but she also acknowledges that it hasn't in the past.

She's not really saying what it should do, but rather exploring the concept of literary property, how it relates and interacts with the idea of copyright, the problems with it, and how one could implement it.

Like, just read this:

In Part II, this Article examines the notion of literary property as a distinct legal concept, which protects an author’s natural right in a manuscript because of the innate connection between a creator and his work. This discussion shows that literary property safeguards an author’s creative interests and expectations against the rest of society, including printers and publishers who purchased the right to print the manuscript. Part III considers whether literary property can be equated to the modern property right that statutory copyright creates. Part III concludes that literary property and copyright are distinct legal concepts, and proposes that the two different bases for recognizing ownership of creative works—natural property and economic incentives—should be explicitly recognized as separate and distinct ideas to ensure clarity in policy that determines legal entitlements to creative works. Part IV evaluates how such a separation of natural property and economic incentives affects and shapes the debate of the elusive balance between private rights and the public interest. Part IV surmises that a separation of rights from incentives and the acknowledgement of specific norms recognizing authors’ entitlements and obligations will allow the copyright system to realize its constitutional goal of “promot[ing] the Progress of Science and useful Arts.3

Edit: Eh, she is more prescriptive with her conclusion, but at any rate I find it all to be pretty well-reasoned and her counter-arguments from 547 to 552 to be interesting.

 

[bsss]

Am I not going to get any credit for this? I thought it was one of my cleverest posts ever.

I'm late to the party but I immediately got it and loved it. Very good.

I had Eliza as an IRC bot for many a year, and eventually wrote my own Markov chain-based bot as a replacement, which has served my group of friends for over 20 years now.

 

[FrogReaver]

The whole paper, as far as I can tell...I admit I'm kind of glazing over...is basically an argument for what she thinks the law should do, which is treat IP as real property, but she also acknowledges that it hasn't in the past.

Article is pretty clear on it's purpose.

"The purpose of this Article is to explore the notion of literary property, to determine whether literary property may be equated with copyright, and, if so, to assess what the implications might be for modern copyright law as it adapts to newly emerging technological, social, and cultural trends."

"But it's also centered on this backdrop "In the past decade, attacks on these expansions by left-leaning critics have become visceral and intense. As copyright owners assert absolute property rights over creative works and critics argue that state interests operate to balance and limit statutory rights, perhaps the terms of this debate might be clarified through a determination of whether copyrighted material is property in a legal sense."

That might can be summarized in some sense as 'what the law should do' but it's not the fundamental summary of the article that comes to my mind.

 

[Bill Zebub]

That might can be summarized in some sense as 'what the law should do' but it's not the fundamental summary of the article that comes to my mind.

I agree she's not explicitly calling for new laws, but it's pretty clear where her sympathies lie.

In any event, I think the very fact she feels she needs to make these arguments reinforces what we've been saying all along: historically copyright has been common law, not natural law.

 

[FrogReaver]

I didn't say that it agreed with my stance. Once again, you are so focused on "winning an argument" that you completely misunderstand why I said one should read it: I found it interesting. It's an engagement with the idea of your "literary property" as a natural right, how that would function, what are the potentially problematic interactions, and how it could be brought about. It's a very interesting piece, but here you are trying to act like it is hiding something that is rather bluntly exclaimed and explained in the piece as being "hidden away" in a footnote. I like it because it has more cites and sources about the topic, interesting quotes, and ideas on how it would actually function.

That's fair. I assumed that, and possibly it was justified at the time given the intense pushback we got for sharing our perspectives on it.

Again, I assert that you don't seem to have read the piece because you clearly don't understand what the author set forth in the introduction.

Why do you keep doing this, especially when you didn't even read the 50 page piece?

She's not really saying what it should do, but rather exploring the concept of literary property, how it relates and interacts with the idea of copyright, the problems with it, and how one could implement it.

Like, just read this:

Edit: Eh, she is more prescriptive with her conclusion, but at any rate I find it all to be pretty well-reasoned and her counter-arguments from 547 to 552 to be interesting.

That's cool. From what I've read I've not found the reasoning particularly compelling, though the actual historical facts she bases everything on line up particularly well with my understanding.

 

[FrogReaver]

I'm late to the party but I immediately got it and loved it. Very good.

I had Eliza as an IRC bot for many a year, and eventually wrote my own Markov chain-based bot as a replacement, which has served my group of friends for over 20 years now.

It went completely over my head lol.

 

[Justice and Rule]

That's fair. I assumed that, and possibly it was justified at the time given the intense pushback we got for sharing our perspectives on it.

The pushback was simply because y'all were looking to discredit the piece without understanding it. Like, what do you think you'd get for putting it through Claude and saying "Well, it feels like this footnote here kind of destroys the whole argument" without actually knowing the purpose of the piece?

Why do you keep doing this, especially when you didn't even read the 50 page piece?

Because y'all didn't even read the intro before you started trying to discredit it. I can admit that I haven't studied the piece in-depth like I might if I were using it for a formal citation, but God help me I went over a lot of it simply out of curiosity. But I can confidently state I read more than you did because I was concerned with actually engaging with it instead of immediately discrediting it.

That's cool. From what I've read I've not found the reasoning particularly compelling, though the actual historical facts she bases everything on line up particularly well with my understanding.

I've gotten over most of the piece (though not to my typical depth) and I find it pretty compelling, especially the idea that current copyright doesn't line up with the intent or intended ideas of what was going on, and how literary property could cover those areas. It's the sort of discussion that I think should be around this stuff given the hellscape that modern copyright currently is. And it's more interesting to read about an expert's opinion on the matter than whatever an LLM is saying.