"The United States has a strong interest in continuing to develop a robust and competitive artificial intelligence industry that sets the standard for the practice and procedure of AI use globally," the brief reads.
Firmly an example of capitalism cannibalism themselves.
It may not abolish copyright but it is causing cracks.
Copyright was always a scam, non personal information should be free. Multiple people can have the same good idea, walling of access to a good idea behind capital blocks human progress.
Before anyone says something, yes artists deserve to eat… just like everyone else. Being economically productive should not be a condition for that. Make your art for fun and enjoy the honor of being copied with a sidedish of UBI.
If we didnt have copyright laws then the wealthy would just copy everyone’s good ideas and ensure the people who created those ideas get little to nothing, like Amazon making their own versions of every popular item and selling it for less than the original product.
You must be joking, the vast majority of patents are owned by large corporations.
Can you give me one example of where copyright is protecting an average wealth citizen?
Enforcing copyright requires you to have the economic resources to create lawsuits when it gets infringed. Sometimes enforcing your rights can costs into millions of dollars. Infringers often have the resources to delay the legal case till you the rightsholder have no more money left to continue.
Places like china don’t care about it either and they will just copy and sell on the western market anyway.
Just because the copyright system has been perverted and bastardized by regulatory capture doesn’t mean the concept of copyright is bad. Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I feel that is moving the goal post a bit but i am a history nerd so i will happily read about any historical examples of what you speak. (Not sarcasm i really really love learning and being proven wrong)
Here is what Wikipedia had to say about the orgins of copyright law (tldr its censorship by church and state)
Tap for spoiler
The origin of copyright law in most European countries lies in efforts by the church and governments to regulate and control the output of printers.[12] Before the invention of the printing press, a writing, once created, could only be physically multiplied by the highly laborious and error-prone process of manual copying by scribes. An elaborate system of censorship and control over scribes did not exist, as scribes were scattered and worked on single manuscripts.[13] Printing allowed for multiple exact copies of a work, leading to a more rapid and widespread circulation of ideas and information (see print culture).[12] In 1559 the Index Expurgatorius, or List of Prohibited Books, was issued for the first time.[13]
There is an earlier story about a dispute of a copied work which ended in a battle its said to have caused 3000 casualties, an unreliable number but enough to assume this wasn’t exactly David vs Goliat either.
Some things (field of medicine/environmentalism) can’t wait 15 years for an effective democratised solution.
The idea that someone would be rewarded for limiting access to such solution sickens me.
Naturally they would deserve global praise possible in the form of a reward for creating the idea that changed the world for the better, but capitalism is designed to not do so.
To often in industry the actual creative inventor gets nothing, while the company they work under gets the patent to exploits the demand.
It would be way less of a problem for sure, but not moot. An individual inventor can still stop other people from using an identical solution simply for being first to file the paperwork.
Most big authors and artists dedicate their lives to their craft because, and this is true, once they finish writing a book or recording a song, they’ll get paid for people who buy or stream them. Without copyright, there’s zero reason to pay them.
Seems highly arbitrary. I always think about how early airplane tech was almost all developed in Europe because no one in America could work on anything adjacent after the Wright Bros patented their flyer. Intellectual property is intellectual theft.
Firmly an example of capitalism cannibalism themselves.
It may not abolish copyright but it is causing cracks.
Copyright was always a scam, non personal information should be free. Multiple people can have the same good idea, walling of access to a good idea behind capital blocks human progress.
Before anyone says something, yes artists deserve to eat… just like everyone else. Being economically productive should not be a condition for that. Make your art for fun and enjoy the honor of being copied with a sidedish of UBI.
If we didnt have copyright laws then the wealthy would just copy everyone’s good ideas and ensure the people who created those ideas get little to nothing, like Amazon making their own versions of every popular item and selling it for less than the original product.
You must be joking, the vast majority of patents are owned by large corporations.
Can you give me one example of where copyright is protecting an average wealth citizen?
Enforcing copyright requires you to have the economic resources to create lawsuits when it gets infringed. Sometimes enforcing your rights can costs into millions of dollars. Infringers often have the resources to delay the legal case till you the rightsholder have no more money left to continue.
Places like china don’t care about it either and they will just copy and sell on the western market anyway.
Some sources for the later
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYHIJtQxbzw
https://qz.com/771727/chinas-factories-in-shenzhen-can-copy-products-at-breakneck-speed-and-its-time-for-the-rest-of-the-world-to-get-over-it
Just because the copyright system has been perverted and bastardized by regulatory capture doesn’t mean the concept of copyright is bad. Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I feel that is moving the goal post a bit but i am a history nerd so i will happily read about any historical examples of what you speak. (Not sarcasm i really really love learning and being proven wrong)
Here is what Wikipedia had to say about the orgins of copyright law (tldr its censorship by church and state)
Tap for spoiler
The origin of copyright law in most European countries lies in efforts by the church and governments to regulate and control the output of printers.[12] Before the invention of the printing press, a writing, once created, could only be physically multiplied by the highly laborious and error-prone process of manual copying by scribes. An elaborate system of censorship and control over scribes did not exist, as scribes were scattered and worked on single manuscripts.[13] Printing allowed for multiple exact copies of a work, leading to a more rapid and widespread circulation of ideas and information (see print culture).[12] In 1559 the Index Expurgatorius, or List of Prohibited Books, was issued for the first time.[13]
There is an earlier story about a dispute of a copied work which ended in a battle its said to have caused 3000 casualties, an unreliable number but enough to assume this wasn’t exactly David vs Goliat either.
15 years of non transferable copyright encourages creativity.
Some things (field of medicine/environmentalism) can’t wait 15 years for an effective democratised solution.
The idea that someone would be rewarded for limiting access to such solution sickens me.
Naturally they would deserve global praise possible in the form of a reward for creating the idea that changed the world for the better, but capitalism is designed to not do so.
To often in industry the actual creative inventor gets nothing, while the company they work under gets the patent to exploits the demand.
If employees owned the means of production, this would be a moot point… Just pointing that out for people.
It would be way less of a problem for sure, but not moot. An individual inventor can still stop other people from using an identical solution simply for being first to file the paperwork.
Sure, evidence?
Using existing data on recordings and books we obtain a point estimate of around 15 years for optimal copyright term
Most big authors and artists dedicate their lives to their craft because, and this is true, once they finish writing a book or recording a song, they’ll get paid for people who buy or stream them. Without copyright, there’s zero reason to pay them.
Seems highly arbitrary. I always think about how early airplane tech was almost all developed in Europe because no one in America could work on anything adjacent after the Wright Bros patented their flyer. Intellectual property is intellectual theft.
It comes from this paper. Using existing data on recordings and books we obtain a point estimate of around 15 years for optimal copyright term
It makes sense that some copyright protection is beneficial to society as it encourages new works.
But I think the important part is to ensure copyright is non transferable. Then large corporations cannot build (and charge for) large libraries.