Yes, I agree completely! You phrased it very well too. Surprised so many people are arguing against Copyright on the basis of capitalism, but it seems more like a communist mindset.
POLICY
-
AI Copyright Debate: Finding Balance or Sliding Toward Free-for-All
By
–
Is there a middle ground in Copyright debate? If loopholes are made wider for AI, I don't see how © holds. Some want to abolish it; many claim it's about "balancing of interest" — but I don't see how that could ever work. Seems like a slippery slope into free-for-all. Thoughts?
-
Legal boundaries between random creation inspiration derivative forgery
By
–
There's a continuous scale between "random creation" "inspiration" "derivative" "forgery". The burden is on the author to navigate that legally. Some of those are fine but it always depends on the use.
-
Economic Rights Policy Impact in AI Era
By
–
Colloquially true and I agree with you. I don't see how this affects policy though, and why it justifies removing the economic rights of people.
-
Preventing AI Data Siphoning and Market Regulation
By
–
What's the 2023 version, how do you prevent AI companies from destroying markets they syphon data from? How does a loophole for generative systems not get abused by everyone?
-
TRIPS and Berne: Author Rights Protection Framework
By
–
To clarify the relationship between TRIPS and Berne: TRIPS mandates all of Berne (except 6bis) thus all the fundamental rights granted to authors are still valid and your secondary objectives can be achieved only in ways that do not prejudice the legitimate interest of authors.
-
Copyright removal and TRIPS compliance in AI context
By
–
OK, let's dig in there then. How is removing copyright balancing interests in a way that complies with TRIPS 7 & 8?
-
GNU License Violation: Relicensing Identical Code
By
–
What if someone takes your GNU-licensed code and makes an identical version with a different license?
-
Copyright liability at scale: AI training and infringement risks
By
–
Yes, that's the point of Copyright! As a human artist, if you intentionally copy someone's work you are potentially liable and the responsibility is yours to ensure (i) you're not infringing or (ii) you get the right license. Doing so at scale by machines is 1.0e+9x risk.
-
Pranesh’s U.S.-Centric Argumentation Strategy Outdated by Century
By
–
Pranesh' argumentation strategy is more U.S. centric and pre-Berne, so not only out of touch with the rest of the world but about 100 years out of date.