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

[Bill Zebub]

For the same reason it would no longer be able to be updated after one's death: they hadn't considered that a problem at the time. I'm not sure there is a deeper reason.

That doesn't make any sense at all.

"How long should it last? What happens when the creator dies?"
"That's not a problem we need to worry about."
"Ok, let's make it 14 years then."

WTF?

 

[trappedslider]

You don't need to be writing an academic paper or legal brief to understand that AI summaries aren't great. I mean, unless you like glue on your pizza, but to each their own.

Remember when this used to do this instead of what it does now? looks at robots that fall over and looks at some robots that don't fall over now

Man, I'm gonna ask ChatGPT to summarize this whole thread.

you'd need to i think provide a link to it, unless Morrus has gotten to the point where he needs the money from selling the data to the companies who do the training. I know a number of companies are selling what users provide for AI training.

 

[Justice and Rule]

That doesn't make any sense at all.

"How long should it last? What happens when the creator dies?"
"That's not a problem we need to worry about."
"Ok, let's make it 14 years then."

WTF?

Do you know why it lasts 14 years? Or why you can reup after 14 more if you are still alive? Or why previous works were grandfathered in for 21 years? Are these special things, or did they simply choose a time they felt would be adequate?

I mean, I'm down for it to having deeper meaning, but given my study, things like having certain things sunset is kind of standard when it comes to new and innovative ideas. Without deeper study, I can't tell you if they landed on this number from the start or it was a compromise built into it. Either way, I'm not sure what you are trying to get at.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Remember when this used to do this instead of what it does now? looks at robots that fall over and looks at some robots that don't fall over now

Yeah, truly, AI summaries totally all get it right now and we should simply trust them implicitly. It's not like we have clear examples of where they break down and why they break down.

 

[FrogReaver]

Then why weren't protections (originally) granted in perpetuity?

Morrus has been making comparisons to stealing cars. You don't lose your right to your car after 14 or 28 or "lifetime plus 90". years. It's forever.

Right. The whole point is that establishment of any particular non-perpetual timeframe undermines the natural/moral right theory for copyright laws. If it was a natural/moral right then a timeframe makes no sense.

 

[trappedslider]

Yeah, truly, AI summaries totally all get it right now and we should simply trust them implicitly. It's not like we have clear examples of where they break down and why they break down.

yeah because tech never improves, that's why I still have a B&W tv in my living room.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Do you know why it lasts 14 years? Or why you can reup after 14 more if you are still alive? Or why previous works were grandfathered in for 21 years? Are these special things, or did they simply choose a time they felt would be adequate?

I mean, I'm down for it to having deeper meaning, but given my study, things like having certain things sunset is kind of standard when it comes to new and innovative ideas. Without deeper study, I can't tell you if they landed on this number from the start or it was a compromise built into it. Either way, I'm not sure what you are trying to get at.

I wasn't asking why it was specifically 14 years, but why not in perpetuity, in the way that physical property is owned?

You gave me a very strange answer, something to do with death and why they didn't think it would be a problem at the time, none of which made any sense to me.

 

[Bill Zebub]

yeah because tech never improves, that's why I still have a B&W tv in my living room.

I have a B&W tv because it's the only kind I could scavenge when I emerged from the silo.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Yeah, truly, AI summaries totally all get it right now and we should simply trust them implicitly.

Your race to an extreme parody of what the other poster claimed suggests that you don't really have a good response.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Right. The whole point is that establishment of any particular non-perpetual timeframe undermines the natural/moral right theory for copyright laws. If it was a natural/moral right then a timeframe makes no sense.

And yet it is, somehow, an explicit justification within a great many of our early copyright laws, which I've cited and still had sunsets. The idea that the only way there is a natural right is that it would be in perpetuity clashes with early lawmakers who clearly saw these as not being mutually exclusive, including guys like Madison (who was on the Continental Congress committee that put out the quote I cited when pushing out their own copyright law).

yeah because tech never improves, that's why I still have a B&W tv in my living room.

And sometimes tech has natural limitations, which is why the Metaverse is a mobile-only thing now.

I wasn't asking why it was specifically 14 years, but why not in perpetuity, in the way that physical property is owned?

You gave me a very strange answer, something to do with death and why they didn't think it would be a problem at the time, none of which made any sense to me.

Because, again, this was a new concept they were ushering in. Putting an idea in perpetuity might be too much for them, but that doesn't necessarily argue against it being a natural right: as I said with our colonial forebearers, they clearly didn't see the contradiction in justifying ownership of ideas as a natural right with a similar time limitation. So how do we slice this? Do we call them liars, or simply accept that they could work out the contradiction in their mind because they weren't trying to overthink it too much.

Your race to an extreme parody of what the other poster claimed suggests that you don't really have a good response.

What's the response to "Oh look, tech can get better" when it currently isn't much better?