This is the correct take. Copyright as a concept is just flawed, especially in a world where you can sell those ideas.
Comment on If Creators Suing AI Companies Over Copyright Win, It Will Further Entrench Big Tech
NounsAndWords@lemmy.world 9 months ago
This is an extremely unpopular opinion, but I just hate copyright as a concept to begin with. Yes I want creators to own their own work and be able to profit from it…but that’s not even how it works now. Like 10 companies own all the popular IPs, many don’t even do anything with them. They hire artists, tell them to make stuff and because they are on payroll the company owns it. Fan fiction already exists and rarely do they get confused with the original. I’m not concerned about big companies stealing the little guys work because those big companies most of the time can’t even manage to make interesting concepts out of their existing work with the benefit of already owning the creations of thousands of artists.
All so Mickey Mouse could be covered under copyright for 100 fucking years.
anthoniix@lemmy.world 9 months ago
db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 months ago
This is an extremely unpopular opinion, but I just hate copyright as a concept to begin with
Not in my instance ;)
Mahlzeit@feddit.de 9 months ago
If you want this to be unpopular, then you need to point out some of the implications. Lemme…
They hire artists, tell them to make stuff and because they are on payroll the company owns it.
This means, that those who think that AI training should require a license are not standing up for artists. They are shilling for intellectual property owners; for the corporations and rich people.
If it requires a license, that means that money must be paid to property owners simply because they are owners. The more someone owns, the more money they get. Rich people own the most property, so rich people get the most money.
And what do employees get? They get to pay.
commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 months ago
that’s not even how it works now
that’s never how it has worked. the statute of anne was written to stop 17th century london printers from breaking each others’ knees over who is allowed to publish long-dead shakespeare’s plays.
nicetriangle@kbin.social 9 months ago
I think the big problem is the duration of copyright. That it's so much longer than patents is pretty hard to logically defend.
Womble@lemmy.world 9 months ago
Yup, No one being able to produce a copy of something you created for a decade after it was first published - entirely reasonable.
People profiting off of artificial exclusivity 60 years after the author died 50 years after publishing a work - not reasonable.