4 ms·

"AIs can ignore copyright" is the absolute ultimate in blank check for capital holders. Waiving copyright to solve the problem of systems favoring them is like

"AIs can ignore copyright" is the absolute ultimate in blank check for capital holders. Waiving copyright to solve the problem of systems favoring them is like deciding to jump because you're afraid of heights. Copyright law has done a huge amount to reward creators -- I know even local-tier artists and musicians without the support of large capital who make a good chunk of their living through sales supported by it. The full benefits of copyright law don't always accrue to every creator, but the reason for that capital has stronger economic power when it comes to capturing distribution (often aided by consumers who prefer something like Spotify which is priced inexcusably low) which it can leverage into stronger negotiating power against creators, not because "copyright law is mostly bullshit." When the system works (and it does for some people) creators are rewarded and can invest more time in doing things better. When it doesn't (ugh, streaming revenues), the situation could be improved, but as is generally the case not by just deciding to not bother with the whole thing.

zirgs 3y ago
How do I benefit from 90 years long copyright terms?
- wwweston 3y ago
  The same way you benefit from copyright being valuable to creators at all combined with the reason why options with longer exercise horizons are more valuable. Honestly I'm not sure 90 years or whatever is the optimal time and I'm certainly willing to sign on to discussion with thoughtful people or even political movements about whether term length reform should be included in those "when it doesn't [work]" considerations regarding copyright I mentioned earlier. Lengths beyond max(author_lifetime,half_average_lifespan) probably have diminishing social and individual returns. But also I'm really tired of having that conversation with people who aren't thoughtful and ask questions like that as if it's some kind of insightful point about the copyright model in general when the truth is that it's a just a parameter.
  - zirgs 3y ago
    There's a huge difference between, say, 25 years after publication and 70-90 years after the author's death. I'd argue that shorter copyright terms would be benefical to society. It would force Disney to finally create something new instead of endless reboots, sequels and remakes. How many Batman reboots do we have now? How many do we need?
  - surgical_fire 3y ago
    I am not convinced. Creators have multiple avenues to profit from their creations beyond copyright. Either way, this is orthogonal to the original point. Copyright being undermined by generative AI may be a positive outcome for society as a whole, as it is a powerful creative tool. Some things that might take a large team of people to create will perhaps be more accessible to solo creators or smaller teams. > But also I'm really tired of having that conversation with people who aren't thoughtful and ask questions like that as if it's some kind of insightful point about the copyright model in general when the truth is that it's a just a parameter. Then don't have that conversation. No one is forcing you.

zirgs 3y ago

How do I benefit from 90 years long copyright terms?

wwweston 3y ago
The same way you benefit from copyright being valuable to creators at all combined with the reason why options with longer exercise horizons are more valuable. Honestly I'm not sure 90 years or whatever is the optimal time and I'm certainly willing to sign on to discussion with thoughtful people or even political movements about whether term length reform should be included in those "when it doesn't [work]" considerations regarding copyright I mentioned earlier. Lengths beyond max(author_lifetime,half_average_lifespan) probably have diminishing social and individual returns. But also I'm really tired of having that conversation with people who aren't thoughtful and ask questions like that as if it's some kind of insightful point about the copyright model in general when the truth is that it's a just a parameter.
- zirgs 3y ago
  There's a huge difference between, say, 25 years after publication and 70-90 years after the author's death. I'd argue that shorter copyright terms would be benefical to society. It would force Disney to finally create something new instead of endless reboots, sequels and remakes. How many Batman reboots do we have now? How many do we need?
- surgical_fire 3y ago
  I am not convinced. Creators have multiple avenues to profit from their creations beyond copyright. Either way, this is orthogonal to the original point. Copyright being undermined by generative AI may be a positive outcome for society as a whole, as it is a powerful creative tool. Some things that might take a large team of people to create will perhaps be more accessible to solo creators or smaller teams. > But also I'm really tired of having that conversation with people who aren't thoughtful and ask questions like that as if it's some kind of insightful point about the copyright model in general when the truth is that it's a just a parameter. Then don't have that conversation. No one is forcing you.