Hates AI or hates copyright?

Hates AI. She thinks it just saturates too quickly or something? I dunno, it's not me, I just read her call it boring.

Law wise, seems like you guys have suggested some pretty pretty common libertarian views. Would you push back against being labeled that way?

How about straight up abolishing IP law?

I'd be in favor of that, companies would have to compete on distribution (speed, catalog, ETC) and access to the best remixes (supporting creators to move faster) [Jack Dorsey and Elon Musk have supported this]. I think YouTube is WAY ahead in this even while navigating the existing copyright labyrinth. Can't think of another platform even close, really.

Anyway, someone invented the circular saw a long time ago and now how many brands of circular saw are there. They might all have their own patent but they all do the same job. Humans are probably going to have to get over it. I mean we're not even talking about anyones intelectual property anymore if Claude wrote itself. Sorry Anthropic, you are entitled to shit as far as I can tell.

Yeah. It may have been easier to track intellectual property in the past, at least the majority of it. In the 2000's and 2010's it evolved into a whack-a-mole exercise. Now, it's almost full saturation and it's global. Laws might need a bit of tweaking as we get further and further into the age of AI.

I know one artist who HATES it. Not just because it seems to hurt artists, but because it kind of instantly makes things boring.

Hates AI or hates copyright? Both could be said to make things boring. A conversation about AI biting artists' work to 'generate' images rightly involves copyright law. But Claude is a tool, shouldn't we be discussing patent law instead? I'm not even sure how patent law differs.

Anyway, someone invented the circular saw a long time ago and now how many brands of circular saw are there. They might all have their own patent but they all do the same job. Humans are probably going to have to get over it. I mean we're not even talking about anyones intelectual property anymore if Claude wrote itself. Sorry Anthropic, you are entitled to shit as far as I can tell.

That KAIROS thing is nuts though! Bring on the post promp era I say.

@cozy said in Digital Copyright law, AI and knowledge creation:

What’s the point of copyright law? Is the law doing its job? Does it make sense?

Copyright law is generally classified as civil law, not criminal law, except in extreme cases such as commercial piracy. Copyright law protects original works of authorship and makes sense as written. Having just Googled it and read it now, I don't see much need for improvement.

@cozy said in Digital Copyright law, AI and knowledge creation:

How should it be enforced regarding AI? Should changes be made? Regardless of the law, the choice to prosecute rests on the infringed, so what are the advantages and disadvantages of seeking litigation? How does that sort of logic apply on the small and large scale?

As I said above, copyright law is a civil law. Not criminal. Criminal laws are "enforced"(think investigation > arrest > prosecution > incarceration) but civil laws, on the other hand, deal with disputes between private parties. Advantages and disadvantages depend on, as a litigant, how much damage you've incurred or expect to incur based on the infringements you seek to prove in court. The logic, small or large scale, is simple in most cases. Many lawyers informally weigh the likely recovery against the likely cost and time investment. If the expected outcome doesn't clearly justify the expense, they'll often recommend alternatives like sending a demand letter, filing a DMCA takedown, or negotiating a licensing agreement instead.