All Creative Work Is Derivative

QuestionCopyright.org has the same observation. They made a nice music video to further spread the idea, how "all creative work builds on what came before": ▶ this video

in “The Casio employee behind the “Sleng Teng” riddim that revolutionized reggae” · View on HN

Bit of a stretch to fashion AI-derived/AI-coauthored works as other people's work. Are DALL-E portraits done Picasso-style unrightfully selling Picasso's works? Is an individual selling portraits done Picasso-style unrightfully selling Picasso's works? No, of course not. Joyce's literature was influenced by Ibsen, Mozart looked up to Haydn, Newton was humble enough that he openly professed he stood on the shoulders of his predecessors, Perelman refused the Millennium prize because it wasn't also offered to his colleague Hamilton. All human innovation is iterative, and derivative. ▶ this video Our skill doesn't grow in vacuums, without outside mentorship and guidance. There are areas where I am upset about the application of AI, but this is not one of them. Consider copilot a gentle guiding hand for those without access to a second pair of eyes nearby to give you reminders on what you may otherwise have on the tip of your tongue. But in the way that Led Zeppelin refused to recognize how heavily their music was influenced by delta blues artist was unbecoming, I can accept the argument that it is perhaps douchey of Github to sit on Copilot as squarely their creation.

in “Copilot sells code other people wrote” · View on HN

I meant "inspired by" or something of that ilk. The point is that culture is derivative and Steamboat Willie wouldn't have existed without Steamboat Bill. Everything is a remix. ▶ this video

in “The Copyright Office Belongs in a Library” · View on HN

I think the current copyright laws are already too overreaching and need to be overhauled. They are basically owning a work forever now, and that's not how copyright was supposed to work. Copyright was supposed to protect the creator for a while, and then release it in the public domain, so other creators can make variations of it, and further enrich the culture, which was actually the ultimate goal of copyright. Protecting the creator was just a means to an end, not the very end itself, which is how MPAA and RIAA are acting right now - like they own everything and forever (with the perpetual 20 year extensions), and are entitled to laws that further protect it, no matter what other rights they abuse to do that (case in point: SOPA, Internet disconnections, ISP monitoring for piracy, etc). And no, "intellectual property" is not just like real property. Why? Because you can't just take someone's property and make variations of it, but you can do it with creative works, and it has been done since the beginning of time. And again, this was the ultimate goal of copyright, to allow other people later on to use those works, for the betterment of the whole society: ▶ this video [link] So don't assume that just because they named it Intellectual Property now, it's exactly the same as real property. It's actually more unlike real property than it is like it. IP is more of a misnomer in this case. It's the same thing with patents. It's probably safe to assume that they changed it to that na

in “What everyone in the SOPA debate is missing: IP is not a fundamental right” · View on HN