‹ BackHN Continuity

Thread

Unsealed Briefs in Authors’ Case v. Microsoft/OpenAI

631 points · 623 comments · papergirl

  1. Betelbuddy · · focus · HN ↗
    The Title should be: "Top Execs Knew Their Mass Book Piracy Was Illegal And Would Put Authors Out of Work"
    1. armchairhacker · · focus · HN ↗
      Are there any studies that show it has actually put more authors out of work than the prior trendline?
      1. afavour · · focus · HN ↗
        I feel like you're skipping over the illegal part. Something legal that puts authors out of work is quite different to blatant breaking of the law.
        1. rpdillon · · focus · HN ↗
          They're not skipping, they're keying on the exact same thing I am, which is whether or not authors have been put out of work because of AI, and to what degree. This is stated like it's a fact, but it is not a fact that is established, at least in my experience.
          1. aeon_ai · · focus · HN ↗
            And the use of the data largely being considered 'fair use' means that theft is an assertion based not in law, but in perception and ignorance.

            Intellectual property is a myth, as any hacker knows. A world where AI can solve diseases easily, and corporations can find ways to claim ownership over those novel solutions, is not one where we should be encouraging stronger IP laws.

            1. dofm · · focus · HN ↗
              Say you spend a hundred working hours on an ephemeral painting (that is, it won't last, it will fade, disintegrate in nature, can't be moved, etc.). You then have that painting scanned at high resolution, to make a limited series of a dozen very large prints.

              Scenario 1: a scalper takes the medium resolution image from your e-commerce website, and slaps it on a series of products they sell for their own profit on Amazon without your permission.

              Scenario 2: someone buys one of those prints, scans it to a high resolution, and then makes a series of slightly smaller, high quality prints that they sell for their own profit without your permission.

              Is it your contention that both of these things are something that should be allowed and the original artist has no recourse?

              Because it seems like your more specific concerns about e.g. disease cures could be addressed by targeted legislation creating new exemptions from intellectual property without destroying the means of protecting income from creative work.

              (Scenario 1 has happened to an artist I know, luckily with a piece of non-ephemeral work)

              1. armchairhacker · · focus · HN ↗
                They should be allowed. The author should have an alternate way of being compensated for his work, e.g. patronage, and people who approach the e-commerce site should be able to do a reverse image search to find the print available for free elsewhere.
                1. dofm · · focus · HN ↗
                  > e.g. patronage

                  This is nothing more than an argument that 99% of working interior designers and artists shouldn't get an income.

                  But it's also an argument that software developers should be paid minimum wage; you just have to work through the consequences of the abandonment of copyright to see software development reduced to day labour.

                  If that is what you want, you should be honest about it.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.