Cool, so if openAI can do it, that means piracy is legal?
How about we just drastically limit copyright length to something much more reasonable, like the original 14 year duration w/ an optional one-time renewal for another 14 years.That should give AI companies a large corpus to train an AI with, while also protecting recent works from abuse. Perhaps we can round down to 10 years instead, which should still be more than enough for copyright holders to establish their brand on the market.
I think copyright has value, but I don’t think it has as much value as we’re giving it.
Honestly with the current pace of cultural output we’re at, even 5 years feels generous. What was made in 2019 that still seems terribly relevant… Is there still a brisk trade in Frozen II merch I’m not aware of?
Idk, I’ve seen plenty of books be popular something like 5 years after release, so having those be duplicated by bigger publishers in that time seems like a really bad idea, especially for smaller authors who have a harder time breaking through.
I think 10-15 w/ a one-time renewal for another 10-15 with proof that the rights holder didn’t recoup their investment sounds reasonable. They’d have to pay for that renewal (probably relative to expected/past sales), but it would be an option. It would suck to be at year 10 after launch, and suddenly there’s a ton of demand for your book (say, your recent release broke through, and people are reading your older works) so a different publisher swoops in and steals all of that profit. Or maybe a big movie producer decides to make a movie based on your book about 10 years after it has released, should they be allowed to just not pay you for that work?
The copyright system certainly has problems, but it does provide value to smaller creators.
I admit I was only thinking about the output of our largest firms. There’s room for that, and I could easily be persuaded that the strength and duration of IP law should be inversely proportional to the size of the IP holder itself. And especially whether it is held by the sole creator, or collectively by private interests. People should own what they personally made, as much as possible under the circumstances.
Eh, once you share something publicly, you no longer have complete control over it. You’ll always own it, but you won’t always have the authority to tell others how your work may be used.
And yeah, the renewal thing is an attempt to prioritize smaller creators (who may actually need the extra protections) over larger creators (who don’t need the extra protections).
Cool, so if openAI can do it, that means piracy is legal?
How about we just drastically limit copyright length to something much more reasonable, like the original 14 year duration w/ an optional one-time renewal for another 14 years.That should give AI companies a large corpus to train an AI with, while also protecting recent works from abuse. Perhaps we can round down to 10 years instead, which should still be more than enough for copyright holders to establish their brand on the market.
I think copyright has value, but I don’t think it has as much value as we’re giving it.
Honestly with the current pace of cultural output we’re at, even 5 years feels generous. What was made in 2019 that still seems terribly relevant… Is there still a brisk trade in Frozen II merch I’m not aware of?
Speaking as the father of a 4-year-old girl, there definitely is. Not that I disagree in principle, but it’s probably a bad example.
SFX cue: Wilhelm scream as I am slain by my bad opinion
Yeah nah, bad e.g. but I’m not convinced 5 years is too short.
Idk, I’ve seen plenty of books be popular something like 5 years after release, so having those be duplicated by bigger publishers in that time seems like a really bad idea, especially for smaller authors who have a harder time breaking through.
I think 10-15 w/ a one-time renewal for another 10-15 with proof that the rights holder didn’t recoup their investment sounds reasonable. They’d have to pay for that renewal (probably relative to expected/past sales), but it would be an option. It would suck to be at year 10 after launch, and suddenly there’s a ton of demand for your book (say, your recent release broke through, and people are reading your older works) so a different publisher swoops in and steals all of that profit. Or maybe a big movie producer decides to make a movie based on your book about 10 years after it has released, should they be allowed to just not pay you for that work?
The copyright system certainly has problems, but it does provide value to smaller creators.
I admit I was only thinking about the output of our largest firms. There’s room for that, and I could easily be persuaded that the strength and duration of IP law should be inversely proportional to the size of the IP holder itself. And especially whether it is held by the sole creator, or collectively by private interests. People should own what they personally made, as much as possible under the circumstances.
Eh, once you share something publicly, you no longer have complete control over it. You’ll always own it, but you won’t always have the authority to tell others how your work may be used.
And yeah, the renewal thing is an attempt to prioritize smaller creators (who may actually need the extra protections) over larger creators (who don’t need the extra protections).
deleted by creator