<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>xp84</author><text>One nitpick with this: “Ordinary” people mostly don’t own any IP that earns them any income.&lt;p&gt;Most who earn their income from IP are society’s elites. Perhaps the lowest-paid least elite IP profession I can think of is journalists, and I’m pretty sure they are doing works for hire and not owning the copyright.&lt;p&gt;Arguably when it comes to the IP questions, ordinary people are far more likely to be benefiting from AI (for instance getting it to make art they couldn’t express because of lack of talent) than they are to be be robbed of their IP in a way that matters.&lt;p&gt;Obviously the question of AI harming ordinary people in terms of automating mundane jobs is a very real one, but interestingly it’s totally irrelevant to the IP issues.</text><parent_chain><item><author>oldkinglog</author><text>&amp;gt; I think the worst possible outcome is a licensing regime that means that Disney or Paramount or Elsevier or whoever all get to have a monopoly on training large models within their niche.&lt;p&gt;Why is this the worst possible outcome? Companies using AI would be training with properties they own or have licensed appropriately, rather than the existing scheme of ignoring copyright law to extract $$$ from the creative works of ordinary people.</text></item><item><author>hedora</author><text>I think the worst possible outcome is a licensing regime that means that Disney or Paramount or Elsevier or whoever all get to have a monopoly on training large models within their niche.  My guess is that any successful calls for regulation will have this outcome, which means that individuals won&amp;#x27;t be able to legally use AI-based tools except when creating works for hire, etc.&lt;p&gt;Currently, I think most of the training use cases can be covered by the existing &amp;quot;you can&amp;#x27;t copyright a fact&amp;quot; carve out in the law.  That&amp;#x27;s probably better for society and creators than my licensing regime scenario.&lt;p&gt;Anyway, I&amp;#x27;m rooting for &amp;quot;no regulation&amp;quot; for now.  The whole industry is still being screwed over by market distortions created by the DMCA, and this could easily be 10x worse.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>The data that powers AI is disappearing fast</title><url>https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/19/technology/ai-data-restrictions.html</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>rcxdude</author><text>Because it would simply perpetuate the current copyright system which primarily rewards the large distribution companies disproportionately to the creators, especially smaller ones, while doing little to alleviate the effects on the job market for said creatives, in fact enhancing this effect by effectively feeding even more of the value into existing license holders as opposed to those creating new works (now instead of new works with existing franchises primarily rewarding those who own the franchises, this would effectively apply to all new works, if generative AI were to become mandatory to compete).</text><parent_chain><item><author>oldkinglog</author><text>&amp;gt; I think the worst possible outcome is a licensing regime that means that Disney or Paramount or Elsevier or whoever all get to have a monopoly on training large models within their niche.&lt;p&gt;Why is this the worst possible outcome? Companies using AI would be training with properties they own or have licensed appropriately, rather than the existing scheme of ignoring copyright law to extract $$$ from the creative works of ordinary people.</text></item><item><author>hedora</author><text>I think the worst possible outcome is a licensing regime that means that Disney or Paramount or Elsevier or whoever all get to have a monopoly on training large models within their niche.  My guess is that any successful calls for regulation will have this outcome, which means that individuals won&amp;#x27;t be able to legally use AI-based tools except when creating works for hire, etc.&lt;p&gt;Currently, I think most of the training use cases can be covered by the existing &amp;quot;you can&amp;#x27;t copyright a fact&amp;quot; carve out in the law.  That&amp;#x27;s probably better for society and creators than my licensing regime scenario.&lt;p&gt;Anyway, I&amp;#x27;m rooting for &amp;quot;no regulation&amp;quot; for now.  The whole industry is still being screwed over by market distortions created by the DMCA, and this could easily be 10x worse.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>The data that powers AI is disappearing fast</title><url>https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/19/technology/ai-data-restrictions.html</url></story>