Copyright Lately

> You are conflating copyright with free expression. No, copyright is a direct infringement on free expression. We've just tolerated it because the trade off was worth it. Not worth it because people would get rich and that was import to us. Worth it because having a chance to make money on a creative work encourages the creation of more creative works and having more creative works was important to us. I'm sure that there were many times in history when someone came up with a good story and got mad that somebody else told a version of that story that others liked better. Not only is the ability to share stories more important than that one guy's feelings, but the result is better stories for everybody. Once people starting selling their creative works and it became easier to copy them we agreed that it was important that people had an opportunity to make money off their efforts so we'd have more works and that's where we started limiting people's freedom. When those limits are reasonable, it's a good deal. A balance where briefly people wouldn't be able to copy someone's work so they had a chance to make money and then later everybody could do whatever they wanted with it. Recently the media industry has bribed their way into making the restrictions increasingly unreasonable, but we still want people to be able to have a chance to make money on their work so we just need to readjust to something more like what copyright started out as and less like what it's become. >…

Care to explain? I see that statement in this thread, but I am not sure where this is grounded in fact. This is very interesting, because there must be a line here that AI is crossing, and the line is not clearly determined yet. Is linting code crossing the line? Is re-factoring code with automated tools like bicycle repair man crossing the line ? Is AI doing a code review and suggesting the code crossing the line ? Is writing code with a specific prompt and sample code crossing the line? Is producing a high level spec and let the AI design details and code the whole thing crossing the line ? So, where exactly is this line ? The next interesting question is how this could even be enforced. It's going to be hard to prove AI use when using strictly local models. Maybe they could embed some watermark like thing, but I am not sure this can't be circumvented. Would really like to see some legal opinions on this ( unlikely to happen :) The best I found is here: https://copyrightlately.com/thaler-is-dead-ai-copyright-questions/

Publishers have come hard on the Internet Archive, and by extension, on libraries that merely loan online copies of books limited to ones that they have bought [0] No use in closing the physical libraries if books are unavailable to "borrow" online. [0] Hachette vs. Internet Archive. A court win against the Internet Archive has publishers celebrating, but what does it mean for the future of public libraries and digital access? https://copyrightlately.com/as-publishers-beat-internet-archive-are-li…

Eric Goldman didn't bring up the bodily autonomy argument, so here's a different article about it from a different person during earlier stage of the lawsuit: [1][2]. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41730465 [2] https://copyrightlately.com/tattoo-artist-trial-victory-copyright-laws…

It looks like[0] as of the start of this year, only works made in 1927 or earlier are in the public domain. Copyright terms have regularly been extended by Congress and they are astoundingly long now. [0]https://copyrightlately.com/public-domain-day-2023/

Direct link: https://copyrightlately.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Getty-Images-v.…