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

[Bill Zebub]

That's cool, but it doesn't negate the literal reasoning given at the end, which speaks to why it is needed to encourage learning and innovation: because if people feel like their inventions or works will simply be stolen, then they simply will not make things.

Yes, exactly! This is what we have been trying to say.

The reason for IP protection is not because a creator has a natural right of ownership, but because it is worthwhile for a society to grant some form of protection in the interest of driving innovation.

The question then becomes....and this is what the USA's founding fathers debated...of how extensive that protection needs to be in order to encourage innovation/creation. Copyright was originally 14 years, plus an additional 14 years if the author filed for it. And most of the time the author didn't bother.

In order to get to it's current state....I think it's life of author plus 90 (?)...Disney lawyers had to propagate this idea that it's not about economic incentive but natural right.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Yes, exactly! This is what we have been trying to say.

The reason for IP protection is not because a creator has a natural right of ownership, but because it is worthwhile for a society to grant some form of protection in the interest of driving innovation.

The question then becomes....and this is what the USA's founding fathers debated...of how extensive that protection needs to be in order to encourage innovation/creation. Copyright was originally 14 years, plus an additional 14 years if the author filed for it. And most of the time the author didn't bother.

In order to get to it's current state....I think it's life of author plus 90 (?)...Disney lawyers had to propagate this idea that it's not about economic incentive but natural right.

I'll point out that this natural rights idea is expressed in a bunch of works from that time as well (just check my recent post), and thus Madison one time talking about it and saying how it comes from "Common Law" is not the end-all be-all, especially given that the Continental Congress passed one (which Madison would have been present for).

But I find this all to be sour grapes. Trying to find some way out of simply recognizing that these laws were for the protection of authors, because without them it would be a harder cost-benefit justification to try and innovate or create. Those parts of things are readily and easily findable with a simple search, and trying to simply hone in on "innovation" at the expense of the author's ownership doesn't work.

 

[TheAlkaizer]

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

 

[Bill Zebub]

and thus Madison one time talking about it and saying how it comes from "Common Law" is not the end-all be-all

You're leaving out Jefferson; he had a lot more to say on the topic.

 

[FrogReaver]

Did you then disregard it? Because it rather explicitly states what I'm talking about.

I didn't. The information in the Statute of Anne 1710 agrees with me on this. AI initially said this, and after reading the Statute of Anne myself, I independently agree.

And before we get to the Americans touting "innovation", it's worth remembering they were lobbied during the Revolution by authors to create a similar act largely to protect the authors. Again, protecting innovation by protecting the authors from theft.

No one mentions theft in these statutes or their reasoning or arguments in support of it.

That's from Samuel Smith, who was President of Princeton when he wrote that. And then in the Continental Congress:

Like, that's a pretty natural rights argument right there, if you are truly attached to it. But, clearly, it's not that innovation is the only factor here: they are thinking of the author's wellbeing how they can continue to be an author if they don't have some level of control when it comes to their own works. Other states get more blunt with it:

Now that's a state copyright law for Massachusetts, but clearly this idea of natural rights is very much within discussion of the idea of copyright, if you really want to try that argument.

You don't seem to understand the difference in common-law right and natural/moral right.

All those quotes support common-law rights, not natural/moral rights.

 

[Bill Zebub]

But I find this all to be sour grapes.

Wait....sour grapes about what? I'm not the one complaining about AI.

Trying to find some way out of simply recognizing that these laws were for the protection of authors, because without them it would be a harder cost-benefit justification to try and innovate or create. Those parts of things are readily and easily findable with a simple search, and trying to simply hone in on "innovation" at the expense of the author's ownership doesn't work.

I think you are misunderstanding. None of this is intended to justify theft, or to say that what the AI companies have done is right, but rather to argue that the debate can't just be about "creator rights" but has to factor in how the incentive to innovate fits in with an overall plan for what is good for a society.

 

[FrogReaver]

But I find this all to be sour grapes. Trying to find some way out of simply recognizing that these laws were for the protection of authors, because without them it would be a harder cost-benefit justification to try and innovate or create. Those parts of things are readily and easily findable with a simple search, and trying to simply hone in on "innovation" at the expense of the author's ownership doesn't work.

Protecting the authors does not necessitate the protection is founded on natural/moral rights. This is why every reference of protecting them is coupled with, "it's of great benefit of society to do so."

 

[Justice and Rule]

You're leaving out Jefferson; he had a lot more to say on the topic.

Jefferson wanted us to create an entirely new Constitution every 20 years. The man had ideas, but not all of them were good. lol

I didn't. The information in the Statute of Anne 1710 agrees with me on this. AI initially said this, and after reading the Statute of Anne myself, I independently agree.


No one mentions theft in these statutes or their reasoning or arguments in support of it.

You don't seem to understand the difference in common-law right and natural/moral right.

All those quotes support common-law rights, not natural/moral rights.

I cannot help you if you don't read those quotes and miss where they literally call for copyright because "as such security is one of the natural rights of all men there being no property more peculiarly a man's own than that which is produced by the labor of his mind." That is, bluntly, a natural rights argument.

Wait....sour grapes about what? I'm not the one complaining about AI.

I find it sour grapes about the "innovation" argument: trying to shift things to now being about natural law versus common law, or whatever will follow after this.

I think you misunderstanding. None of this is intended to justify theft, or to say that what the AI companies have done is right, but rather to argue that the debate can't just be about "creator rights" but has to factor in how the incentive to innovate fits in with an overall plan for what is good for a society.

That's where it's come from, though. That these statutes weren't meant to protect from theft, but to promote innovation. But those ideas are interlinked: you can only promote innovation by allowing people to have ownership of their ideas.

Protecting the authors does not necessitate the protection is founded on natural/moral law. This is why every reference of protecting them is coupled with, "it's of great benefit of society to do so."

That's adorable, but plenty of people disagree, including several of the ones I have posted. The idea that one's own ideas are, by natural right, theirs is not a modern creation and we shouldn't treat it as such. This is an absolutely inane tangent to try and get away from the argument on.

 

[Bill Zebub]

That's where it's come from, though. That these statutes weren't meant to protect from theft, but to promote innovation. But those ideas are interlinked: you can only promote innovation by allowing people to have ownership of their ideas.

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.

 

[Justice and Rule]

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

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.