5 ms·

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 suddenl

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.

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.