Hacker News
points by linuxftw 2 days ago | 0 comments
Does copyright over knowledge-based works really have any legitimate position in today's society? We're entering a new age of how information is created, used, and distributed.
[–] eesmith 2 days ago
We've entered many new ages of how information is created, used, and distributed over the last 250 years. There's nothing special enough about this new era which justifies throwing out the old ideas of moral and economic rights of an author.
[–] linuxftw 2 days ago
That's just your opinion. I think copyright is immoral.
[–] eesmith 2 days ago
Then lead with that, and don't try to justify it based on some perceived cultural shift.
[–] linuxftw 2 days ago
You're the one that brought morality into the conversation. If you don't think there's anything unique about what we've experienced in the last few years, I don't know what to tell you.
[–] eesmith 2 days ago
I can understand why someone opposed to copyright may be ignorant of the details, but you should know that you were the one who implicitly brought up "moral rights", which is a legal term associated with copyright. Quoting the Berne Convention, Article 6bis:

"Independent of the author's economic rights, and even after the transfer of the said rights, the author shall have the right to claim authorship of the work and to object to any distortion, modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to the said work, which would be prejudicial to the author's honor or reputation."

Those non-economic rights are referred to as moral rights, and you apparently want to get rid of them as well.

As the old saying goes, "You are unique, just like everyone else." Which is why I never said the current time has nothing unique, but rather "There's nothing special enough".

The player piano roll transformed copyright, with White-Smith Music Publishing Company v. Apollo Company leading to the Copyright Act of 1909.

The Linotype machine, microfilm, the photocopier, the cassette tape, the floppy disk, the internet, hip-hop sampling, p2p file sharing - every single one of these challenged existing ideas of copyright. Some of these also got people to call for copyright abolition.

[–] AlienRobot 2 days ago
That's just your opinion.
[–] thephyber 2 days ago
US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 8:

> [The Congress shall have Power] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

[–] linuxftw 2 days ago
I'm familiar with the document. We've reached the terminal progress where copyright is useful to society.
[–] erelong 2 days ago
it never should have had any place, it never made sense, it's always created more problems than it solved
[–] preg_match 2 days ago
Legitimate as in value-preserving or economically? Probably not. Legitimate as in protecting human authors and artists? I think yeah.

We can argue about whether AI is a net-good for society and if the ends justify the means, but I think it's clear that a lot of people who worked very hard are getting fucked over. Is that okay? Are we really fine with piloting the idea "if you're rich enough you can do anything"?

Because, the reality is that if you or I did this, as many have done before, we would be getting sued to oblivion. Assuming we don't straight-up go to jail. But then AI superscalers do the same thing, on the order of 10,000, and somehow nobody goes to jail. Is that really the kind of message we want to send?