The steps you take to make a work in a graphics program, eg "open an image, circle area with lasso tool, apply content-aware-fill" are not copyrightable. The method and product are different things.
> Am I physically touching your painting when I copy it? If not, then your attempt at equating physical property to thoughts is nonsense. We both believe in physical property, however arbitrarily invented it is. Only you believe in intellectual property, and I’m willing to bet you aren’t even consistent with it. Should you be fined for saving an NFT?
I want to hear you respond to this, as I'm about to respond to you. I see no reason to continue if you're just going to avoid anything I say while yourself trying everything to see what will stick.
It's not alien that I believe property excludes thoughts, as you're trying to make it seem. Most people agree with me, until it wouldn't benefit them to do so. Again, I demonstrate this with your presumed support of IP for artists and opposition to IP for NFTs. You would argue against IP for NFTs the same way I'm arguing against you right now, the only difference is that I'm consistent.
IP addresses are not property. Neither are trademarks. We can argue about the slightly related topic of whether they deserve government protections anyways, but it wouldn't be because they're property.
No, copyright and contract law have little to do with each other and you're making a giant leap of logic. Namely, I can find a way to obtain your copyrighted content without making any agreement with you, and still be held legally liable for it. Torrenting copyrighted content someone else broke the rules to seed is one such example. On the other hand, I can't be punished for listening to you sing for someone else in exchange for food, even if I didn't give you any food myself.
Yes there's plenty of things that we don't explicitly agree to and I'm in favour of keeping that list as short as possible. I don't agree that some of the things you listed should be implicit. Nobody is perfectly consistent, but at a baseline I'm far more consistent than you are.
Re nfts, I'm kinda not clear on the question, I think because we don't have a clear societal statement of what an nft is or is trying to accomplish. Literally what an nft is an entry containing with a url on a Blockchain with certain properties around non fungability. Saving that has almost no issue because distributing the bits in a blockchain is one of its fundamental purposes. Now saving the file referenced by the nft starts to become more interesting. My interpretation is that we should respect do whatever the rights holder wishes. If they want to allow saving, great, if not, then don't save. The problem seems to be the rights assignment of nfts aren't really communicated or standardized afaik. Some feel like the nft should represent the ownership rights of the work, some feel like they should represent the ownership rights of an instance which may or may not transfer the rights of the original owner. Some feel it should have nothing to do with rights transfer and instead just be it's own thing. Any of these stances (or others) are fine with me, and if any disallowed saving that seems totally fine. It would be nice if whatever scheme/contract was either standardized or easily identified for each work/nft. Images on the internet already have this problem and systems like creative commons attempt to help, something like nft-commons could really help make clear what rights are implied by the nft and thus which images referenced by nfts could be saved.
So re ipaddresses what characteristic differentiates the from property? For them to be useful it would seem they must have pretty much all the same characteristics.
I agree there could be a world where people could torrent whatever w/o repercussion, in the same way there could be a world where we didn't have to wear pants. It's not where we are, but we can imagine and reason about it.
But even in such a world, should a singer not be allowed to make a contract where they sing but won't be recorded, or a contract where they are recorded only if the folks follow copyright law? Effectively isn't this what many trade agreements are, one country will give another favorable trade conditions X in exchange for Y which includes 'your population can't torrent'. The country voluntarily does so because X is worth it. In fact elsewhere in this thread someone said exactly this happened in their country. Should this contract not be allowed, why not?
So I feel like even if you started in a world that allowed torrenting, if you allowed contract law, you would inevitably evolve to a world that disallowed torrenting, because that's a contract some people would want.
1. You mean copying the image that the NFT points to?
The copyright of that image still exists even with the NFT. So existence of NFT doesn't change anything about the picture's copyright. With or without NFT you can not sell prints of the image or use it however you want without permission of the copyright holder.
2. You mean copying the actual NFT i.e. somehow taking over the block in the chain and assigning it to you?
That is a kin to stealing. Why does it matter if the property is digital or physical? This is the kind of mental gymnastics kids use to justify their pirating of entertainment. "I only *copied* this album, I didn't steal it, the artist still has theirs" is such 14 years old's take on the issue. If you don't want to pay for the media you are consuming then don't pay, but then you also shouldn't consume it. This kind of take just shows more how some people haven never created anything of value, yet they want to extract every bit of value from the society.
It sure would be nice if we lived in a world where copyright and patents weren't necessary, but people try to take advantage of everything and anything, so to protect innovation and creativity we need copyright and patents.
Yeah, just like how last week I requested IT to open up twitch.tv so I can watch programming live streams over lunch, but I was denied (however Youtube is wide open, so I could just watch the VODs anyway) and instead I just used my phone's data to watch twitch on lunch.
If corporate firewall is anything but a slight inconvenience for you then you are not technical.
>Most developers can't work outside their developer environment set up by their company
Are you kidding me? Is this really how you see our industry? You really think that most developers literally can not do work without their company's IT setting up their machine?
Is this normal? This to me sounds like you are saying most devs are such noobs that they can't do their jobs.
I don’t know if that distinction was intended as a limitation, “sound recording” is listed as a derivative work in the statute. It also clarifies that “Copies” are material objects, other than phonorecords
So, mechanical transformation such as rendering a webpage at 150% scale is seemingly a derivative work even if there isn’t any creativity in the process.
What if I write some paragraphs, and then drag a big Grammarly slider across it, and it's no longer my words, but my ideas are still there, just buffed and touched up professionally?
What's "AI generation" anyway?
I wrote a limerick for a friend last week. Well, I had the idea for it and it was jangling inside my head, but I didn't feel like fleshing it out, so I had the AI write it. I was accused of "cheating". But I'm capable of writing this limerick; I just wanted to see if a computer could put a ribbon on it. And it worked fine. I claim authorship (and copyright) nonetheless.
I agree with the business use-case for copyright, trademark, intellectual property, it is a useful collective agreement. To the extent that it is useful.
I thought about this a bit more, and I agree that it is useful that giant software automatons and conglomerates should not get the benefit human creativity until they pass down the value to the creators. Automation should mean less work for everyone, not hyper-profiteering for the few.
> If a court reviews a decision of an administrative body, the court typically starts with the assumption that the decision was correct
In the US, at least, it varies considerably by the exact kind of decision and the context in which it is being applied, ranging from extremely strong deference (Chevron deference) to anti-deference in some contexts. And opposing Chevron deference was an overt priority of the Trump Administration in judicial selection, so in general it would be reasonable to expect deference overall in the US to wane for some time.
This is only applicable to a creativity based copyright hence this might actually trigger a shift to a copyright system more like the British or the Japanese ones.
That argument runs afoul of the "rule of the shorter term" of the jurisdictions that start the copyright term from the publication instead of creation.
Pretty correct, but it wasn't mine (my comment) but chatGPTs. I just presented the commentt from chatGPT for fun - which might not comply with rules that i dismissed. Sorry, i wanted to publicy show the summarization-feature, but still: it was not my best idea. You can always do your own summ...
Honestly, library books tend to be better than random stuff in Barnes and Noble because if it wasn't checked out, it probably would've already been scrubbed from the selection (libraries have limited space), so instead of just getting whatever books were published in the last 2 years, you get books that were published in the last 200 years, and only the more interesting ones. Additionally, the Dewey Decimal system, or its replacement (don't remember what it's called), sorts stuff by similar topic, so if you're already in a section that is interesting to you, any nearby random book also is likely interesting.
This is why I like still going to physical libraries. Also, lack of user-hostile interfaces.
I find the much closer analogue to be instructions for taking a photograph. And that IS considered copyrightable. There are how many free parameters for a photograph? Position in space (3 degrees of freedom), position in time and (if we're not talking 360deg cameras) 3 degrees of freedom for orientation. Maybe another degree of freedom for exposure time, etc, but for an automatic camera those are taken for you. So let's say 7-8 degrees of freedom.
32 bits each for position on the earth (64 bits total... and this is optimistic as vast majority of pictures are on land, near cities, etc), 16 bits for elevation (8 bits likely more than enough for most), 12 bits for each rotational degree of freedom (overkill), 32-36 bits for time. So about 150 bits of unique information? Add another 50bits if you have a manual camera (vast majority of pictures aren't taken that way nowadays), and you're left with 150-200bits. So about the same entropy as a sentence with a dozen or two words in it. All the rest is done by a machine. And this is considered enough for photography, but not enough for machine output. Doesn't make much sense to me. (A Haiku is also about 120 bits, and it is copyrightable.)
The actual GOOD prompt results I've seen typically require a lot more than a dozen words, whether ChatGPT or Stable Diffusion or whathaveyou, and typically involve quite a lot of trial and error.
28 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 59.7 ms ] threadI want to hear you respond to this, as I'm about to respond to you. I see no reason to continue if you're just going to avoid anything I say while yourself trying everything to see what will stick.
It's not alien that I believe property excludes thoughts, as you're trying to make it seem. Most people agree with me, until it wouldn't benefit them to do so. Again, I demonstrate this with your presumed support of IP for artists and opposition to IP for NFTs. You would argue against IP for NFTs the same way I'm arguing against you right now, the only difference is that I'm consistent.
IP addresses are not property. Neither are trademarks. We can argue about the slightly related topic of whether they deserve government protections anyways, but it wouldn't be because they're property.
No, copyright and contract law have little to do with each other and you're making a giant leap of logic. Namely, I can find a way to obtain your copyrighted content without making any agreement with you, and still be held legally liable for it. Torrenting copyrighted content someone else broke the rules to seed is one such example. On the other hand, I can't be punished for listening to you sing for someone else in exchange for food, even if I didn't give you any food myself.
Yes there's plenty of things that we don't explicitly agree to and I'm in favour of keeping that list as short as possible. I don't agree that some of the things you listed should be implicit. Nobody is perfectly consistent, but at a baseline I'm far more consistent than you are.
So re ipaddresses what characteristic differentiates the from property? For them to be useful it would seem they must have pretty much all the same characteristics.
I agree there could be a world where people could torrent whatever w/o repercussion, in the same way there could be a world where we didn't have to wear pants. It's not where we are, but we can imagine and reason about it.
But even in such a world, should a singer not be allowed to make a contract where they sing but won't be recorded, or a contract where they are recorded only if the folks follow copyright law? Effectively isn't this what many trade agreements are, one country will give another favorable trade conditions X in exchange for Y which includes 'your population can't torrent'. The country voluntarily does so because X is worth it. In fact elsewhere in this thread someone said exactly this happened in their country. Should this contract not be allowed, why not?
So I feel like even if you started in a world that allowed torrenting, if you allowed contract law, you would inevitably evolve to a world that disallowed torrenting, because that's a contract some people would want.
1. You mean copying the image that the NFT points to?
2. You mean copying the actual NFT i.e. somehow taking over the block in the chain and assigning it to you? It sure would be nice if we lived in a world where copyright and patents weren't necessary, but people try to take advantage of everything and anything, so to protect innovation and creativity we need copyright and patents.Yeah, just like how last week I requested IT to open up twitch.tv so I can watch programming live streams over lunch, but I was denied (however Youtube is wide open, so I could just watch the VODs anyway) and instead I just used my phone's data to watch twitch on lunch.
If corporate firewall is anything but a slight inconvenience for you then you are not technical.
Last part is such nosense I can't even respond.
Are you kidding me? Is this really how you see our industry? You really think that most developers literally can not do work without their company's IT setting up their machine?
Is this normal? This to me sounds like you are saying most devs are such noobs that they can't do their jobs.
If the training data is unique, and the copyrighter can prove that, then I would consider the end-result copyrightable.
Also - what’s stopping people from lying on their applications about the origin of their work?
So, mechanical transformation such as rendering a webpage at 150% scale is seemingly a derivative work even if there isn’t any creativity in the process.
What if I write some paragraphs, and then drag a big Grammarly slider across it, and it's no longer my words, but my ideas are still there, just buffed and touched up professionally?
What's "AI generation" anyway?
I wrote a limerick for a friend last week. Well, I had the idea for it and it was jangling inside my head, but I didn't feel like fleshing it out, so I had the AI write it. I was accused of "cheating". But I'm capable of writing this limerick; I just wanted to see if a computer could put a ribbon on it. And it worked fine. I claim authorship (and copyright) nonetheless.
I thought about this a bit more, and I agree that it is useful that giant software automatons and conglomerates should not get the benefit human creativity until they pass down the value to the creators. Automation should mean less work for everyone, not hyper-profiteering for the few.
Same here, the underlying principle is called the presumption of legitimacy, the organisational counterpart of the presumption of innocence.
In the US, at least, it varies considerably by the exact kind of decision and the context in which it is being applied, ranging from extremely strong deference (Chevron deference) to anti-deference in some contexts. And opposing Chevron deference was an overt priority of the Trump Administration in judicial selection, so in general it would be reasonable to expect deference overall in the US to wane for some time.
[1] https://www.lomography.com/about/the-ten-golden-rules
This is why I like still going to physical libraries. Also, lack of user-hostile interfaces.
32 bits each for position on the earth (64 bits total... and this is optimistic as vast majority of pictures are on land, near cities, etc), 16 bits for elevation (8 bits likely more than enough for most), 12 bits for each rotational degree of freedom (overkill), 32-36 bits for time. So about 150 bits of unique information? Add another 50bits if you have a manual camera (vast majority of pictures aren't taken that way nowadays), and you're left with 150-200bits. So about the same entropy as a sentence with a dozen or two words in it. All the rest is done by a machine. And this is considered enough for photography, but not enough for machine output. Doesn't make much sense to me. (A Haiku is also about 120 bits, and it is copyrightable.)
The actual GOOD prompt results I've seen typically require a lot more than a dozen words, whether ChatGPT or Stable Diffusion or whathaveyou, and typically involve quite a lot of trial and error.