Wrong framing. "Intellectual property" has only been a concept for ~40 years. It's an invention inflicted upon us by our current elders. It can just as easily b

Wrong framing. "Intellectual property" has only been a concept for ~40 years. It's an invention inflicted upon us by our current elders. It can just as easily be done away with in favor of property ownership and consumer protection instead. e.g. I had old appliances that came with circuit diagrams. We could mandate by law that any device for sale must provide diagrams/schematics, BOM, and supplier contact information, any programmable device must provide source code and must not interfere with the owner loading their own code (basically GPL3 by law), etc. This all falls under the umbrella of strong right to repair/property rights, and in an AI world, it makes complete sense to do it. The cost of producing the "IP" will trend toward zero, so why would we protect it over the owner's rights? Likewise, with climate change and environmental destruction as the top issue in the world for our children, we should be mandating strong repairability criteria and strongly disincentivizing consumerism. For media/entertainment, even today, you can realize that our problem is already one of curation by considering what the world would be like with ~20 year copyright (or if you're just willing to pirate). 10s of millions of books, 10s of millions of songs, 10s of thousands of games. There's already more media than anyone could approach taking in. Even sticking to the best 0.1% (whatever that is) would fill a lifetime. There's simply no reason to continue this nonsense.