- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
During yesterday’s “Winning the AI Race” summit, President Trump weighed in on the debate surrounding AI and copyright, noting that it is “not doable” for AI companies to pay for all copyrighted content used in model training. This stance, shared amidst ongoing AI copyright lawsuits, aims to keep the U.S. competitive in the global AI landscape, especially against countries like China.
Copyright shouldn’t exist anyways. It only exists to support monopolization of distribution.
Copyright actually was a good idea at the time, it provided protection in exchange for enablment. It used to be copyrighted works would be kept secret or secular from the public, same thing as patent/trade secrets, but the copyright framework was devised so that the public could eventually benefit from the works for the price of initial protection of the producer. Disney bastardized it to high hell in court back in the 90s and it just never recovered or adapted to the modern age.
For those unfamiliar, here is the wiki for Statute of Anne. Generally regarded as the basis/advent of copyright.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Anne
In theory it is also supposed to be able to protect small-time creators who come up with a good idea from being copied and run out of the market by megacorporations.
To use video games as an example (trademark violation aside), imagine if EA made their own Celeste 2, or whatever close equivalent they could while avoiding Celeste branding, with no involvement or permission from Maddy Thorson. They copy all of Celeste’s source code and put their legion of underpaid developers to make the shiniest, biggest budget version of Celeste imaginable, erase all of the trans allegory because they’re worried about how it might impact sales, and flood the airwaves to make it seem like it’s better than the original Celeste in every conceivable way.
Unfortunately, you’re wrong in that interpretation. When copyright was devised mega corporations weren’t exactly a thing. Copyright like patents has always been about trying to balance the benefits to society against the needs of the individual.
🍥
Copyright has never been about balancing any kind of benefit to society.
It was invented in the 1700s and you directly benefit from the many many things it has enabled for you over the past 300 years so… No?..
You carry with you an extraordinarily propagandized view of what copyright is.
I carry with me a studied and rooted view of what copyright is. If you want to argue for what it should be that’s fine, but you gain no ground by mudding the swap and doing your opponents work for you. It may get you up votes on an internet forum, but it won’t solicit the social change I and presumably you wish to see.
I mean you claim that then you get the basic details wrong. Copyrights origins are historically rooted in the protection of the corporate control over the means of distribution. Not in the protection of artists whatsoever. Copyright is not, and has not ever been, about protecting artists or creators. Its origin and use has always been about controlling the means of production and distribution. This goes all the way back to the Guild of Stationers in England.
I’m not muddling any ground when I say that copyright isn’t about and never has been about protecting artists.
It’s pointless arguing with that douchebag, they just want to pirate or steal anything they want and want it to be legal.
I don’t agree. I stand with @[email protected] (I’m not sure we’re federated, but this guy: https://kfogel.org/kfogel) in that I think that I fundamentally believe that information wants to be free. Copyright law was built fundamentally to limit and control the distribution of information for control. Its goal was to privatize censorship.
Copyright as Disney uses it is working exactly as intended.
More on copyright:
Copyright is 300+ years old rooted in people who’d spend their lives working to publish a singular book. You’re just… Wrong? I’m not sure what else to tell you. You can make the argument that it’s been shaped that way, but you’re dismissing so much history and stand to further nothing with your stance.
You don’t know what you are talking about do you? Go watch the video.
Copyright was specifically built to protect printers, who demanded a monopoly over publication.
Not the writers or creators of those works, who made nothing from copyright, but the publishing company. It was built to protect a means of distribution.