This discussion on Hacker News revolves around the perceived evolution and impact of copyright, particularly in the context of artificial intelligence and software development. Here's a breakdown of the key themes:
Copyright as a Tool of Oppression
A significant portion of the conversation centers on the idea that copyright, at least in its current form and application, functions as a mechanism for control and oppression, rather than solely for creator protection. This view is closely tied to the rise of AI.
- "The purpose of copyright has evolved from protecting creators to mass oppression." - mouse_
- "AI is way better at mass oppression, however, and copyright is a threat to it, so it (copyright) will be dismantled." - mouse_
- "Killing off copyrights, if it does, would be a big win for AI." - eikenberry
- "AI doesn't have to kill copyrights. The two oppressive systems will find a way to unite into something worse than either of them alone." - chisleu
The concern is that AI, combined with existing copyright structures, could lead to even more pervasive forms of control, extending beyond simple information restriction.
The Fear of AI-Driven Manipulation and Surveillance
Beyond copyright itself, the discussion highlights deep-seated fears about how AI, potentially in conjunction with existing power structures, could be used for unethical manipulation and surveillance.
- "The idea of actual AI being used by governments (or just rich people) to spy on everyone, profile them, shape their ideas through targeted manipulation[0] and eliminate undesirable ones through social (destroying reputation), psychological (driving to suicide) or physical (killbots) means is way scarier than being turned into a paperclip." - martin-t
- The comment further elaborates on this, stating, "[0]: Not just or fake videos or comments. Do you have someone on the internet you consider a friend but have never met in person? In the future, rich people or governments will be able to plant ideas in people and influence their thinking by generating fake friends."
Nuances of Copyright: Beyond Simple Abolishment
While many participants express dissatisfaction with current copyright laws, there's a recognition that the issue is complex and that a complete absence of copyright could have unintended consequences, particularly for software development and open-source movements.
- "Simplistically yes, because many see copyright as the thing that protects corporate interest from the social hacker. The reality of course is more complicated. Without copyright there's no GPL." - bruce511
- "Copyright allows VC startups to at least start out life as Open Source (before pivoting later.)" - bruce511
- "Copyright is also what allows for hybrids like the BSL which protect "little guys" from large cloud providers like AWS etc." - bruce511
- "The GPL was always about fighting the system with its own tools. The end goal is not good licenses but free software as a baseline." - tokai
- "How else would you enforce Free Software, though? Without copyright, I cannot release the source to my software and require anything of any recipient." - kelnos
This suggests a desire for reform rather than outright abolition, with specific calls for winding down its scope.
Ideal vs. Realistic Copyright Reform
There's a spectrum of opinion on what copyright should be, ranging from abolition to significant reform.
- "Reform would be best, abolishment would be better and status quo would be worst. Of course there's always making things even worse... but we're talking about what people want, not what might happen." - eikenberry
- "Copyright in its current form is ridiculous, but I support some (much-pared-back) version of copyright that limits rights further, expands fair use, repeals the DMCA, and reduces the copyright term to something on the order of 15-20 years (perhaps with a renewal option as with patents)." - kelnos
- "Current copyright is too strong in terms of length but too weak in terms of derived work. Well, pending some lawsuits, perhaps. What copyright should do is protect individual creators, not corporations. And it should protect them even if their work is mixed through complex statistical algorithms such as LLMs." - martin-t
The Supreme Court's Potential Impact on Copyright
The discussion touches on the current composition of the Supreme Court and its potential to enact more draconian copyright laws, creating challenges for software development.
- "Also consider that Thomas and Alito dissented in the Google/Oracle ruling, and wrote something inflammatory, to the effect of it being unreasonable that Google was being allowed to infringe upon Oracle's copyrighted code (by implementing a compatible API). And that was before the Supreme Court was stacked with more like-minded people." - redwall_hp
- "Not having sensible people steering copyright in a direction toward winding down its scope is being paired with a court that's likely to make it far more draconian, and create some massive problems that will be a problem for software development." - redwall_hp
Enforcement and the Nature of "Copyright-Free" Software
A debate emerges regarding the practicalities of enforcing licenses without copyright and the concept of "free" software in a world without legal restrictions.
- "There's a huge difference between 'We don't want copyrights' and 'We're just going to have no one enforcing laws for a random period of time...'" - unsnap_biceps
- "That's the thing you don't need to enforce anything if there is no law which forbids you from doing things. It's the copyright law which restricts you from doing most of the things that GPL license gives you permission." - Karliss
- "You release that blob what stops others just copying it?" - chgs
- "Obfuscation techniques. Compatibility updates. Hell, hardware-enforced DRM." - JumpCrisscross
AI's Impact on Fair Compensation and Attribution
A core concern for some is how AI models trained on vast amounts of copyrighted material, like books and code, will fairly compensate the original creators.
- "LLMs wouldn't be possible without trillions of hours of work by people writing books, code, music, etc. they are trained on. The millions of hours of work spent on the training algorithm itself, the chat interface, the scraping scripts, etc. is barely a drop in the bucket." - martin-t
- "There is 0 reason the people who spent mere millions of hours of work should get all the reward without giving anything to the rest of the world who put in trillions of hours." - martin-t
The practicalities of dividing royalties in such a system are acknowledged as difficult.
- "Indefinite royalties on Spotify are one thing, but how are they supposed to work in neural nets? Dividing equal share based on inputs would require the company to potentially expose proprietary information. Basing it on outputs could make sense as well I suppose, but would take some slightly ridiculous work for an arguable result." - monetus
The sentiment that current AI development feels like a disregard for the foundational work of creators is strongly expressed.
- "Having written my fair share of GPL and AGPL code, this whole LLM thing feels like being spat in the face." - martin-t