3 ms·

Copyright has to be abolished for the good of all humanity.

throwitaway222 3y ago
Why is that good? It's funny because a few years ago everyone was stating this. Now that GPT and transformer technology exists, abolishing copyright is suddenly no longer popular. It's almost like this is just one giant echo chamber and things swish and swirl like the ocean on opinion.
- satellite2 3y ago
  I don't completely agree with the parent but it's definitely too long. Life + 70 so in average 110 years coverage is ridiculous. Why is that not good? Because it push studio to milk their cash cow forever (as we see with the big franchises occupying all multimedia space and monopolizing all large investments) and it just limits creativity. If the duration was reduced it would force them to invest on creators to find new successes and that would benefit the general public and the creators. Fair use is also far too restrictive as we see with LLMs. What do you think about when you read "video game plumber"? So basically it became a foundational concept cognitively for you and me (polite way to say that we've been brainwashed by millions of $ in investment in publicity such that the concept is deeply ingrained in our minds) and on top of occupying a significant amount of space in our brains we should be forbidden to use the concept in our communication and creative work?
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  I don't think the pattern you're describing exists. I've seen a few people want to abolish copyright, but not many. The vast majority always seemed to want reductions in length. And historically a lot of people have wanted fair use to be easier. When I look at the arguments against AI, they're not asking for copyright to be longer. They're asking for it to be stricter in a very particular way. And they're making a distinction between human use and transformer use. There's no "swish and swirl" that I have seen. There's not really a conflict between those opinions on fair use, and there's definitely no conflict with the opinion on duration.
anigbrowl 3y ago
The solution to something that has a lot of problems is not going to the opposite extreme.
- permo-w 3y ago
  being "the opposite extreme" doesn't mean it's wrong
  - anigbrowl 3y ago
    It usually is though.
iefbr14 3y ago
Well, it can use some rework.
gumballindie 3y ago
A piece of technology based on theft is useless. If anything, copyright has become more relevant than ever.
- r2_pilot 3y ago
  I believe, if anything, copyright is more useless than ever. It's an anachronism when these powerful tools of media creation are so available to so many people. Is it more valuable to society that a select few benefit from decades of cultural appropriation, or is it better for society that cultural artifacts from my youth to be freely available to everyone? As it stands, I may even die before material from before my birth becomes public domain. That's greedy, stupidly shortsighted, and an inefficient allocation of resources.
  - gumballindie 3y ago
    The issue though is that art is not stolen from a select few, but from society by a select few. The roles are inverted. There’s no benefit for society when a few greedy corporations steal art they then monetise. Said “resources” are not dug out of the ground. They the fruit of people’s labour. Stealing it does no good.
    - r2_pilot 3y ago
      If it was actually theft, I'd agree, but an idea is not able to be stolen. And who inspired the person to create? Did they steal by observing the world around them? No one is an island, and who's to say they'd even have the creative muse without the support of language and other art. Calling "copying" stealing does no good.

Why is that good? It's funny because a few years ago everyone was stating this. Now that GPT and transformer technology exists, abolishing copyright is suddenly no longer popular. It's almost like this is just one giant echo chamber and things swish and swirl like the ocean on opinion.

satellite2 3y ago
I don't completely agree with the parent but it's definitely too long. Life + 70 so in average 110 years coverage is ridiculous. Why is that not good? Because it push studio to milk their cash cow forever (as we see with the big franchises occupying all multimedia space and monopolizing all large investments) and it just limits creativity. If the duration was reduced it would force them to invest on creators to find new successes and that would benefit the general public and the creators. Fair use is also far too restrictive as we see with LLMs. What do you think about when you read "video game plumber"? So basically it became a foundational concept cognitively for you and me (polite way to say that we've been brainwashed by millions of $ in investment in publicity such that the concept is deeply ingrained in our minds) and on top of occupying a significant amount of space in our brains we should be forbidden to use the concept in our communication and creative work?
Dylan16807 3y ago
I don't think the pattern you're describing exists. I've seen a few people want to abolish copyright, but not many. The vast majority always seemed to want reductions in length. And historically a lot of people have wanted fair use to be easier. When I look at the arguments against AI, they're not asking for copyright to be longer. They're asking for it to be stricter in a very particular way. And they're making a distinction between human use and transformer use. There's no "swish and swirl" that I have seen. There's not really a conflict between those opinions on fair use, and there's definitely no conflict with the opinion on duration.

anigbrowl 3y ago

The solution to something that has a lot of problems is not going to the opposite extreme.

permo-w 3y ago
being "the opposite extreme" doesn't mean it's wrong
- anigbrowl 3y ago
  It usually is though.

iefbr14 3y ago

Well, it can use some rework.

gumballindie 3y ago

A piece of technology based on theft is useless. If anything, copyright has become more relevant than ever.

r2_pilot 3y ago
I believe, if anything, copyright is more useless than ever. It's an anachronism when these powerful tools of media creation are so available to so many people. Is it more valuable to society that a select few benefit from decades of cultural appropriation, or is it better for society that cultural artifacts from my youth to be freely available to everyone? As it stands, I may even die before material from before my birth becomes public domain. That's greedy, stupidly shortsighted, and an inefficient allocation of resources.
- gumballindie 3y ago
  The issue though is that art is not stolen from a select few, but from society by a select few. The roles are inverted. There’s no benefit for society when a few greedy corporations steal art they then monetise. Said “resources” are not dug out of the ground. They the fruit of people’s labour. Stealing it does no good.
  - r2_pilot 3y ago
    If it was actually theft, I'd agree, but an idea is not able to be stolen. And who inspired the person to create? Did they steal by observing the world around them? No one is an island, and who's to say they'd even have the creative muse without the support of language and other art. Calling "copying" stealing does no good.