You must log in or register to comment.
Copyright isn’t supposed to promote anything, copyright is supposed to grant infinite money out of a once made job(by a specialist who was paid also only once) to a capitalist.
I mean, you are describing modern copyright.
But copyright is an example of something where the US Constitution, at least, explicitly says its purpose is to “promote” something:
[the United States Congress shall have power] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
I like how straightforward the Copyright Clause is. It even gives a testable standard. The length of “exclusive Right” for IP should be the “limited” length of time that “promote[s] the Progress of Science and useful Arts.”
So, the plain reading here is that IP laws need to give exclusivity long enough to encourage creation, by making authors and inventors think it is worth the time and money investment, but not so long that they discourage creation, for example, where a person doesn’t create something because they are afraid of violating IP laws.
Originally, in the US, copyright lasted 14 years, with an option for renewing for 14 more years, and this is one example where I think they got it about right.
The problem is that it specifies both a purpose
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts
and a mechanism by which to do so
by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
The purpose is great, the mechanism is dogshit in the 21st century, as it just lazily crams information into capitalism rather than adapting capitalism to the realities of information.
The problem is that capitalism is a system entirely based around things that are scarce, and it only functions in that context. Air for instance is completely free and valueless, even though it’s wildly critical, just because it is abundant. In capitalism things don’t have value when they are useful or needed, just when they are scarce.
That works fine-ish when you mostly deal in physical goods, because the way that energy and mass scale means that they are somewhat inherently scarce, it takes just as much mass/energy to make a second copy as the first. Information blows this apart though, starting with the written word, escalating with the printing press, and being oblitered in the digital connected age, as information does not scale like energy / mass and as a result it has become trivial to infinitely copy and distribute information, making it abundant the moment it’s digitized.
So now you have the Constitution enshrining mechanisms that enforce scarcity where there is absolutely no need for scarcity.
So how should it be changed then? Because giving no protection to inventors is not the answer.
Limited copyright encourages sharing. This is why patents are good. The problem occurs when the lifespan of the protection is too favourable to a non creator owner.
Protections held as an asset by a corporation do little to encourage innovation.
Without copyright, little creators would get no chance to make money. It would all go to capitalists.
Kind of confused. Earlier, the EFF wrote an article about AI generated works not being copyrightable in most cases. Now, they’re claiming AI generated works are copyrightable? What’s going on?
I don’t really see anything here arguing that AI generated works are copyrightable. It would probably help if the article actually mentioned what it was in response to, because that’s a pretty important thing to just gloss over. But it sounds to me like it’s saying that copyright protections don’t need to be strengthened even more than they already are, just because companies are afraid that they will make less profits because of ai existing.
You need to understand that the quality of a man, and by extension an organization, is determined by how much they cost to buy.
