zlacker

[return to "Tell HN: We should start to add “ai.txt” as we do for “robots.txt”"]
1. samwil+H5[view] [source] 2023-05-10 12:56:05
>>Jeanne+(OP)
Using robots.txt as a model for anything doesn't work. All a robots.txt is is a polite request to please follow the rules in it, there is no "legal" agreement to follow those rules, only a moral imperative.

Robots.txt has failed as a system, if it hadn't we wouldn't have captchas or Cloudflare.

In the age of AI we need to better understand where copyright applies to it, and potentially need reform of copyright to align legislation with what the public wants. We need test cases.

The thing I somewhat struggle with is that after 20-30 years of calls for shorter copyright terms, lesser restrictions on content you access publicly, and what you can do with it, we are now in the situation where the arguments are quickly leaning the other way. "We" now want stricter copyright law when it comes to AI, but at the same time shorter copyright duration...

In many ways an ai.txt would be worse than doing nothing as it's a meaningless veneer that would be ignored, but pointed to as the answer.

◧◩
2. safety+Wl[view] [source] 2023-05-10 14:11:46
>>samwil+H5
> "We" now want stricter copyright law when it comes to AI, but at the same time shorter copyright duration...

This gross generalization of other people's views on important issues is really offensive.

My view is that the Copyright Act of 1976 had it about right when they established the duration of copyright. My view is that members of Congress were handsomely rewarded by a specific corporation to carve out special exceptions to this law because they wanted larger profits. "We" didn't call the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 the "Mickey Mouse Act" for nothing. It's also no coincidence that Disney is now the largest media company in the world.

Reducing copyright term extension has everything to do with restoring competition and creativity to our economy, and reversing corruption that borders on white collar crime. It has nothing to do with AI. Don't recruit me into some bullshit argument that rewrites history and entrenches Disney's ill-gotten monopoly.

◧◩◪
3. dclowd+lB[view] [source] 2023-05-10 15:16:25
>>safety+Wl
> Reducing copyright term extension has everything to do with restoring competition and creativity to our economy

Can you explain your line of thinking here? How does the ability to use another company’s intellectual property restore creativity? It just seems like a path to allow bootlegging.

◧◩◪◨
4. CWuest+HV[view] [source] 2023-05-10 16:42:42
>>dclowd+lB
Yesterday's conversation here about the Ed Sheeran lawsuit should explain much of this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35868421

Here's one key bit from the OP: - - - - -

But the lawsuits have been where he’s really highlighted the absurdity of modern copyright law. After winning one of the lawsuits a year ago, he put out a heartfelt statement on how ridiculous the whole thing was. A key part:

There’s only so many notes and very few chords used in pop music. Coincidence is bound to happen if 60,000 songs are being released every day on Spotify—that’s 22 million songs a year—and there’s only 12 notes that are available.

In the aftermath of this, Sheeran has said that he’s now filming all of his recent songwriting sessions, just in case he needs to provide evidence that he and his songwriting partners came up with a song on their own, which is depressing in its own right.

[go to top]