Thanks, Mike! And thanks for writing this post.
Yes, it’s both trolling & serious. Trolling because as you note, we talk about “creativity” all the time, but it doesn’t seem to have any content. And more to the point, we pretend we like creativity, even though revealed preferences suggest we like things that are familiar, but just a little bit different.
But Adrian makes a good point about thresholds. But those kinds of Type I/Type II problems are familiar in IP law & elsewhere. Sometimes I’m troubled by false positives, sometimes I’m troubled by false negatives. When it comes to copyright protection, it seems like we should err on the side of denying it. After all, regulatory monopolies are a dangerous thing.
That said, I’m semi-serious that an AI tool could actually be pretty good at reverse engineering “novelty,” which is at least a decent proxy for creativity.
Of course, the trolly part is that if all you get to own is the “creative” parts, maybe they won’t be all that lucrative.
I don't know if there's a PDF of The Cat Not in the Hat! available, but I created a video of myself reading the book, with images of all the pages & put it on YouTube. Ironically, Alan Katz, the author of the infringing book, submitted a takedown request. I responded & I'm trying to goad him into suing me (he lacks standing under 9th circuit precedent). In the meantime, I posted the video to the Internet Archive. https://archive.org/details/the-cat-not-in-the-hat_202110
LOL, I feel your pain. The more I tried to be a real lawyer, the more I longed for academia. Look at the results! I hope it's clear that my essay was tongue in cheek. I agree with your assessment of the usefulness of legal scholarship. But I think it could be even better! We avoid many of the weaknesses of other scholarly disciplines, but add some of our own. Every day, in every way, legal scholarship could be getting better & better.
LOL, fair
Thanks, Mike! And thanks for writing this post. Yes, it’s both trolling & serious. Trolling because as you note, we talk about “creativity” all the time, but it doesn’t seem to have any content. And more to the point, we pretend we like creativity, even though revealed preferences suggest we like things that are familiar, but just a little bit different. But Adrian makes a good point about thresholds. But those kinds of Type I/Type II problems are familiar in IP law & elsewhere. Sometimes I’m troubled by false positives, sometimes I’m troubled by false negatives. When it comes to copyright protection, it seems like we should err on the side of denying it. After all, regulatory monopolies are a dangerous thing. That said, I’m semi-serious that an AI tool could actually be pretty good at reverse engineering “novelty,” which is at least a decent proxy for creativity. Of course, the trolly part is that if all you get to own is the “creative” parts, maybe they won’t be all that lucrative.
Re: Re: Re:
So you preserve your worthless tokens in tangible form. That's cool, but meaningless.
Re:
... or a painting on your wall.
Re:
I love this comment more than I can express.
Re: Re: Cat Not in the Hat!
I don't know if there's a PDF of The Cat Not in the Hat! available, but I created a video of myself reading the book, with images of all the pages & put it on YouTube. Ironically, Alan Katz, the author of the infringing book, submitted a takedown request. I responded & I'm trying to goad him into suing me (he lacks standing under 9th circuit precedent). In the meantime, I posted the video to the Internet Archive. https://archive.org/details/the-cat-not-in-the-hat_202110
Re: Re: Re: Legal scholarship's citation and student review is n
LOL, I feel your pain. The more I tried to be a real lawyer, the more I longed for academia. Look at the results! I hope it's clear that my essay was tongue in cheek. I agree with your assessment of the usefulness of legal scholarship. But I think it could be even better! We avoid many of the weaknesses of other scholarly disciplines, but add some of our own. Every day, in every way, legal scholarship could be getting better & better.
Re:
LOL. Pity the poor landlord!
Re: Legal scholarship's citation and student review is not the p
Epic comment. How could I have guessed you were a legal scholar?