* AI using copyrighted material to generate new content feels very unfair to copyright holders. It seems impossible to give accurate accreditation for which source material influenced which AI generated image. Given the political power of copyright holders in NA this will probably be regulated in some way.
* It's unclear how different this process is to humans observing copyrighted material and then making original works. In the long term (10+ years) we can run into real problems if the first point isn't addressed correctly.
* I'm not sure if I fully grok the copyright argument for wealth gap described in the article. Anyone can generate a copyright so copyrights are inherently valuable on their own. IP feels like just another asset class the wealthy can own to me.
I've been enjoying "copyright's highway", it gets into each evolution of copyright law by looking at the details of each case as well as the personalities (and associated egos etc) that decided the outcome: what happened after sheet music, then radio and records, xerox machines, then home cassette recording and so on. Really opened my eyes on how much of the law is a compromise between interests and not some argument based on morals or righteous principle.
I just looked up "who owns this sentence on ebay" and see there's the new hardcover for ~30$, and a few paperback advance copies for $5 that are not meant to be put up for sale. Weighing the ethics of that decision, would be ironic to pirate a book on copyright, I think I will support the authors tho. It's cool that they co-authored with a lawyer, I guess the 30 bucks would buy about 5 minutes of his time so it's very gracious of him to offer his findings in book form.
Copyright law is a nearly perfect conflict in capitalism because profit by way of merely owning capital also has no moral or logical basis. Legitimation of such a system requires extreme propaganda, and the propagandized then read such nonsense back into things like copyright.
>Really opened my eyes on how much of the law is a compromise between interests and not some argument based on morals or righteous principle.
This applies not only to copyright law, but almost every single aspect of civil existence, and increasingly moreso every day.
What are you talking about? Copyright was created to solve real problems for people who create things. Patents too. We could argue how much protection people should get but at the end of the day it makes sense that the people who put in work need to get paid.
>profit by way of merely owning capital also has no moral or logical basis
Speaking of propaganda, do you hear yourself? I get what you're saying but in practice there is rarely such a thing. Most of the cases that anti-capitalist types point to are not real "something for nothing" scenarios. The two that stand out are loans and IP. If you own IP, then you have to expend money creating, acquiring, defending, implementing, and selling it (repeat for all attempts to make something that do not lead to profit, which are basically R&D). If you loan money to people, you are deprived of that money and put it at risk at the same time. All of these are services to society that demand compensation, at least if what you're offering up is worth it to people.
In the real world, advocating for pay without work is advocating for slavery. Work must always be done, and if it is so pleasant that it demands no compensation, then it isn't work. The trouble most people have is they only see results and they don't see the work and investment it took to get those results.
So - does this book have any understanding of copyright outside of the U.S or is it all based on the idea that copyright exists to promote the arts and that's it?
All things in moderation. It seems to me that a flat 30-year term would be fine; would provide sufficient incentive to authors, artists, etc. Life + 70 is patently absurd, of course.
Producing new things is happening faster every year. Literally a book can be written in a day, published electronically the same day and published overnight.
30 years longer than the term when the country was founded.
Surely the term should be going down, not up.
I have three ideas:
1. A short flat term, say 3 years, after which the work becomes public domain
Or
2. Copyright is not automatic. You have to publish the work to the Library of Congress and the publication fee is $1000 for one year. You can extend as long as you like but each additional year costs 10x what the previous year cost (pick your favorite exponential values)
Or
3. You get your choice of copyright as we have today XOR non-discriminatory non-DRM distribution. That is, you can choose copyright protection under todays laws, but if you do, you may not use any form of DRM or exclusive licensing and you must make your content available to all distributors at the same price. Or, you can distribute however you want and DRM however you want, but your content will not receive copyright protections.
—-
These all balance the enforcement costs and societal costs of copyright with the right to be remunerated for creative work, and take into account that creation is faster than ever before.
Back in 2011, the UK Government commissioned an "independent review" of copyright etc (The Hargreaves Review of Intellectual Property").
It broadly agrees with your ideas - at least in terms of the fact that copyright is far too long (the report thinks 20 to 30 years would be long enough, possibly in two phases with a renewal needed in between) but notes that the UK is bound by international law to keep copyright longer than that.
It also recommends on weakening copyright with more exemptions...
...and in the case of patent law, making it more expensive to renew patents to encourage people to not just renew by default, and not allowing any additional things to be patented (cf US software patents).
It's also very grumpy about the way copyright law just happened whenever a wealthy industry asked for it
Just for context, the language in the US constitution said "limited time" and was codified as 14 years in 1790 [edit: hey, 14 years after the declaration of independence, never noticed that before [subedit: just a coincidence I guess, UK statute from 1710 was also 14 years.]]
Personally I think that's pretty good and anything longer IMO is unconstitutional. If you're making royalties off something published before 2010 I'd say that's actually helping you sit on your ass as opposed to encouraging creativity.
On one hand I don't love putting a paywall on legal protections, but it's not without merit. I think it's neo-georgism that holds that you should pay for the right to monopolize - whether that's land, natural resources, or intellectual property. If you're keeping something walled off from the public, then you should be taxed so the public still seems some benefit from it. Encouraging only monopolizing the truly profitable.
I'll also add that copyright was intended to protect publishers until they could recoup their investment in the printing of some work. Now that they cost of publishing is zero I don't really see the point.
> Literally a book can be written in a day, published electronically the same day and published overnight.
Hard disagree. Nothing good can possibly be written that fast, even with an army of writers.
>Surely the term should be going down, not up.
IP today is far more expensive than in the past, so going down is not reasonable. 3 years as you suggested is laughable. Some books don't even hit multiple markets in that time. Would any publisher pay an author if they could just wait the author out for 3 years???
>You get your choice of copyright as we have today XOR non-discriminatory non-DRM distribution.
This sentence doesn't make sense. Nor does the idea. What is the point of having any right if your only enforcement mechanism is one that literally loses you money? There would be no party for consumer-grade IP that would be a suitable target for a lawsuit. Maybe a publisher might be able to raise a case against a solitary infringer, because they own enough individual IPs to add up to something against another business. But the people actually consuming IP could never be sued this way.
I actually hate DRM and avoid it. But it solves a real problem and I can't deny that.
>Copyright is not automatic. You have to publish the work to the Library of Congress and the publication fee is $1000 for one year. You can extend as long as you like but each additional year costs 10x what the previous year cost (pick your favorite exponential values)
This has to be a joke. Have you heard the term "starving artist"? Do you realize that some copyrighted work (such as code) is constantly being updated, so it would be overwhelmingly stupid to have such a policy? Then there are news reports and blogs, etc., which cannot possibly be registered fast enough, and also would not necessarily generate $1000 a piece.
* It's unclear how different this process is to humans observing copyrighted material and then making original works. In the long term (10+ years) we can run into real problems if the first point isn't addressed correctly.
* I'm not sure if I fully grok the copyright argument for wealth gap described in the article. Anyone can generate a copyright so copyrights are inherently valuable on their own. IP feels like just another asset class the wealthy can own to me.