4 ms·

> prominent intellectual property law professors These guys are part of the problem IMHO. Having studied some law at university and then reading all of Lawrenc

> prominent intellectual property law professors These guys are part of the problem IMHO. Having studied some law at university and then reading all of Lawrence Lessig's works when he dissected IP law 20 years ago for the Creative Commons project, I was left with the distinct feeling that "IP law" is ugly, unfair, arbitrary, ineffective, crippling to the mind, and devastating to progress and the economy. I now strongly agree with the likes of Richard Stallman that "intellectual property" is a grotesque and bankrupt mess that should be avoided if you want to have any semblance of a mature conversation. Actually, people training AI have a point. New technologies expose the silliness of bad ideas we've clung to for three centuries. And the only way forward is to hugely reform or repeal most of IP law for EVERYONE. The truth is that long before the Statute of Anne "copyright" has its roots in censorship and political control. We used to burn the printers of "seditious works" on pyres of their own books in St James' square in London. Much of "IP law" still functions the same today but hidden behind a cover story about "protecting creators". I now mentally substitute the phrases "intellectual property" with "coercive control of information" (CCI). CCI gets to the nub of power relations instead of pretending we have nice IP "laws" that are applied uniformly. In reality copyright, patents and trademarks have become tools of censorship and denial for those with money, and they do almost nothing to protect individual creators. Things like the DMCA are simply monstrous. If we can't reform and enforce it to actually protect creators it's time to scrap the whole rotten show in my opinion.

jkaplowitz 1y ago
Trademarks are not like the rest of what you listed - they’re effectively a consumer protection law to reduce confusion about the origins or endorsers of a commercial product or service, though its protection is not restricted to consumers. A lot of advocates of software freedom and the non-software equivalents are more okay with trademarks than with the rest of what is often called IP. Nobody is prevented by trademark law from offering any product or service, including commercially; the trademark holder’s consent or an applicable exception is only needed in order to use the trademarked name/logo in their own offering’s name/logo.
- nonrandomstring 1y ago
  I think that's why it's all the more important that trademarks do not get so casually lumped-in with the ridiculous catch-all term "intellectual property". (agreeing with you here and suggesting that people who work with consumer protection marks should distance themselves from the term "IP" entirely)
captainbland 1y ago
In my view IP laws in the digital age are basically a look into what would happen under western capitalism if we discovered any other effectively post-scarcity technology. We wouldn't be transported into Star Trek's universe, we would instead be jailed and beaten for using it. Only the very wealthiest would be allowed to produce with it, they would form state backed cartels and we would be no better off for its invention.
- nonrandomstring 1y ago
  That's an interesting take. When the environmentally unsustainable and so far unprofitable "AI" gold-rush collapses the world will be left with thousands of "models" kicking about, with widespread ability to run locally. If LLMs do ever provide any genuine utility these will be replicated at near zero cost across the globe. Then we'll see the boot switch to the other foot, more of what you predict.... a vicious and disgracefully hypocritical attempt to contain and erase that data to stop anybody obtaining any value from it. At that point the corporations will be magically all for safety and copyright again!
  - captainbland 1y ago
    I think to an extent they're already laying the rhetorical groundwork for all of this, for the day they need it. AI safety, distillation is "unfair". I expect they will try to avoid it being purely about copyright so as to not be seen as hypocrites, but frame it in a more convoluted manner.

jkaplowitz 1y ago

Trademarks are not like the rest of what you listed - they’re effectively a consumer protection law to reduce confusion about the origins or endorsers of a commercial product or service, though its protection is not restricted to consumers. A lot of advocates of software freedom and the non-software equivalents are more okay with trademarks than with the rest of what is often called IP. Nobody is prevented by trademark law from offering any product or service, including commercially; the trademark holder’s consent or an applicable exception is only needed in order to use the trademarked name/logo in their own offering’s name/logo.

nonrandomstring 1y ago
I think that's why it's all the more important that trademarks do not get so casually lumped-in with the ridiculous catch-all term "intellectual property". (agreeing with you here and suggesting that people who work with consumer protection marks should distance themselves from the term "IP" entirely)

captainbland 1y ago

In my view IP laws in the digital age are basically a look into what would happen under western capitalism if we discovered any other effectively post-scarcity technology. We wouldn't be transported into Star Trek's universe, we would instead be jailed and beaten for using it. Only the very wealthiest would be allowed to produce with it, they would form state backed cartels and we would be no better off for its invention.

nonrandomstring 1y ago
That's an interesting take. When the environmentally unsustainable and so far unprofitable "AI" gold-rush collapses the world will be left with thousands of "models" kicking about, with widespread ability to run locally. If LLMs do ever provide any genuine utility these will be replicated at near zero cost across the globe. Then we'll see the boot switch to the other foot, more of what you predict.... a vicious and disgracefully hypocritical attempt to contain and erase that data to stop anybody obtaining any value from it. At that point the corporations will be magically all for safety and copyright again!
- captainbland 1y ago
  I think to an extent they're already laying the rhetorical groundwork for all of this, for the day they need it. AI safety, distillation is "unfair". I expect they will try to avoid it being purely about copyright so as to not be seen as hypocrites, but frame it in a more convoluted manner.