Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Copyright’s stated purpose was to promote the Progress of useful arts and science. That’s why the monopoly was secured to the authors.

Bots don’t care about those incentives. Once built, that’s all they do.

Yes, but the people writing and running the bots still care about those incentives. So it makes sense that they should own the copyright to the articles they generate with their bot.

I disagree — because the goal was to promote a laborious activity. Once we reach a whole new level, we no longer need to give the same incentives. It’s clear that people would be doing this even without copyright.

Now THAT is the first reasonable argument I've heard against copyright for such things. Once it becomes easy, trivial, and for most purposes "free" to hit button and make a best-selling novel, a temporary monopoly on that work wouldn't seem to benefit the goal of incentivising future work. Of course, the person/people that built the system may still need some type of temporary monopoly to incentivize refinements, increased quality, genre variation, etc., maybe even the ability to tailor made a novel to a specific individual's tastes for them alone... but I'm not sure "copyright" would then be the best tool for this. I think there would need to be something new and, given that I think copyright terms are already extremely too long, much shorter than traditional copyright.

Thanks for such an insightful idea! I'm not 100% sure which side I come down on, but it's very thought provoking, the sort of discussion that draws me in to HN.

Applications are open for YC Summer 2020

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact