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

I don't know that "absolute utilitarianism", if such a thing could even exist, would make a sound moral framework; that sounds too much like a "tyranny of the majority" situation. Tech companies shouldn't make the rules. And they shouldn't be allowed to just do whatever they want. However, this isn't that. This is just a debate over intellectual property and copyright law.

In this case it's the NYT vs OpenAI, last decade it was the RIAA vs Napster.

I'm not much of a libertarian (in fact, I'd prefer a better central government), but I also don't believe IP should have as much protection as it does. I think copyright law is in need of a complete rewrite, and yes, utilitarianism and public use would be part of the consideration. If it were up to me I'd scrap the idea of private intellectual property altogether and publicly fund creative works and release them into the public domain, similar to how we treat creative works of the federal government: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_status_of_works_by_t...

Rather than capitalists competing to own ideas, grant-seekers would seek funding to pursue and further develop their ideas. No one would get rich off such a system, which is a side benefit in my eyes.




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

Search: