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

[Bill Zebub]

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

You may find it a compelling idea, but the evidence that until recently anybody thought of it as a natural right, that that was ever the "intended idea," is pretty damned thin.

 

[Justice and Rule]

You may find it a compelling idea, but the evidence that until recently anybody thought of it as a natural right, that that was ever the "intended idea," is pretty damned thin.

It's not really thin; in fact, there's plenty of evidence of our Founders talking about it or considering it. But Wheaton v. Peters made it something that, unless someone has a real interest in overturning it or correcting it via a bill in Congress, a thought-exercise for most. This is also discussed a bit in the piece, along with commentary from at least one copyright writer (in a footnote, if I remember correctly) talking about the decision as a "a complex issue decided simply". But I'm not sure that really detracts from the discussion: simply because something is law doesn't make it right, especially when it comes to Supreme Court decisions.

 

[Bill Zebub]

It's not really thin; in fact, there's plenty of evidence of our Founders talking about it or considering it. But Wheaton v. Peters made it something that, unless someone has a real interest in overturning it or correcting it via a bill in Congress, a thought-exercise for most. This is also discussed a bit in the piece, along with commentary from at least one copyright writer (in a footnote, if I remember correctly) talking about the decision as a "a complex issue decided simply". But I'm not sure that really detracts from the discussion: simply because something is law doesn't make it right, especially when it comes to Supreme Court decisions.

Now that we can agree on.

 

[FrogReaver]

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?

You keep repeating this, but I never once put it through AI. I happened to agree with AI on that point only because that was my independent conclusion. Just because AI says it doesn't mean it is wrong.

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.

I did read the intro though (and more). I have no idea if you read more than me or not. I was a bit confused by it at first when it kept referencing natural rights in reference to literary property, so i did read quite a bit trying to discern where that was coming from. No idea if it was more than you or not.

I'm curious. What did you google to come across that 2012 article?

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.

I trust experts with agendas even less than I trust LLM's. But maybe that's just me.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I trust experts with agendas even less than I trust LLM's. But maybe that's just me.

Nope, it's not.

I do it find it hilarious/ironic when people who won't trust AI instead cite Wikipedia. Remember when more traditional sources... like encyclopedias...tried to convince us we should never trust crowdsourced info? That it couldn't possibly be reliable? How they would find examples of errors and say, "See!??!!? You can't trust this stuff! Buy our encyclopedias!!!"

Almost eerie, isn't it?

 

[FrogReaver]

It's not really thin; in fact, there's plenty of evidence of our Founders talking about it or considering it.

Genuinely, where?

But Wheaton v. Peters made it something that, unless someone has a real interest in overturning it or correcting it via a bill in Congress, a thought-exercise for most. This is also discussed a bit in the piece, along with commentary from at least one copyright writer (in a footnote, if I remember correctly) talking about the decision as a "a complex issue decided simply". But I'm not sure that really detracts from the discussion: simply because something is law doesn't make it right, especially when it comes to Supreme Court decisions.

IMO. That case simply reaffirmed the constitutional framework that had existed in the U.S., with one explicit carveout. Prior to that there were supposedly 3 states that did make mention of natural rights with respect to copyright, but such language didn't make it into the u.s. constitution or any of the other states laws.

Fun Story, I went and checked the primary source for Connecticut's “Act for the Encouragement of Literature and Genius.”. There is actually no natural rights language in the actual statute. Misattributions are great! I guess that puts us at 2, possibly questionable sources there as well.

Primary Sources on Copyright - Record Viewer

 

[FrogReaver]

Nope, it's not.

I do it find it hilarious/ironic when people who won't trust AI instead cite Wikipedia. Remember when more traditional sources... like encyclopedias...tried to convince us we should never trust crowdsourced info? That it couldn't possibly be reliable? How they would find examples of errors and say, "See!??!!? You can't trust this stuff! Buy our encyclopedias!!!"

Almost eerie, isn't it?

I miss those days. Biggest worries were the unending popups that would plague certain sites.