3 ms·
There might need to be some calibration. The reason for copyright is (ostensibly) to compensate for the enormous cost of production. If the cost goes down, the
by boxed 1mo ago
There might need to be some calibration. The reason for copyright is (ostensibly) to compensate for the enormous cost of production. If the cost goes down, the protection should also logically go down.
- LtWorf 1mo agoThe cost of producing decent things hasn't gone down. Also the cost of slop is not that low, just subsidised.
- boxed 1mo agoI'm a programmer by trade. I know you're wrong from much personal experience, and the difference between last year and today is dramatic. If you believe the anti-AI people you will become misinformed, just as much as if you listen to the most pro-AI people.
- LtWorf 1mo ago> I'm a programmer by trade. Me too. I don't understand what makes you think your opinion is superior to all the evidence I've seen so far.
- boxed 1mo agoBecause the evidence only goes in one direction. If I can get substantially more work done because of AI tools that falsifies the idea that LLMs don't help. Same as a satellite orbiting the earth once with a camera filming falsifies flat earthism. It doesn't matter how much evidence there is to say the earth is flat, it's falsified.
- LtWorf 1mo agoExcept all scientific research points in the other direction so, my dear professional developer, in this situation you're the flat earther :)
- HNDevsSuck 1mo ago[dead]
- repelsteeltje 1mo agoI don't think the reason for copyright law is compensation, per se. It's ownership: being in a position where the creator is able to decide what to do with it. Compensation being one option, but also restricting use our controlling access.
- bediger4000 1mo agoThat's the US constitutional reason. Give a creator a temporary monopoly so as to compensate them for ultimately making the public domain larger.
- boxed 1mo agoOwnership is the proxy they could figure out. It's not more complicated than that.
- msabalau 1mo agoThe purpose of copyright under the US Constitution, a text relevant to the courts the EFF is addressing here, is to "promote the progress of science and useful arts by giving creators temporary exclusive rights to their works" It is not to "compensate for the cost of production", nor is it to ensure that business plans of major music publishers happen to be successful. The EFF is correct to say here that copyright shouldn't be perverted to limiting market competition generally, but limited to protecting a specific works.
- bpodgursky 1mo agoWhy are you being argumentative? "Promote" and "exclusive rights" was always about compensation for the time and effort invested. You just rephrased what the OP said while claiming to disagree.
- bux93 1mo agoIt's substantively different. The level of compensation you could expect from copyright needs to be high enough that creators/inventors in general feel that it may be worthwhile to create/invent stuff. That level of compensation may be exactly enough to pay for a musician to make a track. We know this is not the case, it's more like a lottery ticket; some musicians make millions (much more than would be needed to entice them to choose this line of work) and many make almost nothing, but still persist. If you relax copyright provisions so that average compensation is halved, this would presumably have a non-linear impact. Maybe a 50% decrease in expected compensation only results in -10% new works. Maybe in -80%. For example, it is completely implausible that retroactively extending copyright (as has been done) results in any additional works being created at all - just higher profits for existing owners. This also applies to the costs; a higher cost of production (e.g. cost of living) doesn't necessarily need to lead to more stringent copyright restraints, nor lower costs to more lax restrictions.
- boxed 1mo agoI don't get how what you said is different from what I said.
- 1mo ago
- bogwog 1mo agoCopyright has nothing to do with cost of production. What does it cost for me to doodle something on a napkin? Nothing, yet I still enjoy the full protections copyright law offers for that doodle (with the exception today being AI companies. Apparently, they can do whatever the fuck they want with it)
- cestith 1mo agoDo you mean production or reproduction? For instance, have you ever looked and the budget or the credits for a major film, TV, or game project?