Comment on Microsoft, OpenAI sued for copyright infringement by nonfiction book authors in class action claim

• Womble@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  I already have:

  IP laws are a huge stifle on human creativity designed to allow corporate entities to capture, control and milk innate human culture for profit

  I thought that was a prima facie reason for why they are bad, And no I do not believe all copyright law is bad with no nuance, ads you would have seen if you stalked deeper into my profile rather than just picking one that you thought you could have fun with.

  source

  • LWD@lemm.ee ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    IP laws are a huge stifle on human creativity

    Great, now do you have any sources for this? Because in the real world, authors appear to disagree with you.

    no I do not believe all copyright law is bad with no nuance

    Then you shouldn’t say things like “IP laws are a huge stifle on human creativity”. In fact, since you don’t believe it, you should edit your comments to say something like “Some IP laws are bad.”

    Where do you stand on the case of Disney versus Alan Dean Foster? Do you believe that they owe him no royalties because his works are cultural too?

    Where do you stand on the case of James Somerton and his plaigirism of the works of multiple small queer creators? Is he entitled to their cultural output while bashing the minorities they belong to?

    source

    • Womble@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      There are plenty from people who actually study this stuff.

      I don’t have a significant opinion on the Disney case, though I will note that it stems from the fact that corporations are able to buy and sell rights to works as pieces of capital (in this case Disney buying it from Lucasfilm).

      source

      • LWD@lemm.ee ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        I appreciate you linking me a source that says the says the core goal of copyright is to promote the advancement of science and the arts.

        “The problem with modern copyright doctrine is not copyright in itself, but the seemingly limitless grant of rights on an insufficiently particularized basis. The solution offered is two-fold: the extension of copyright protection should be more limited, and the allowance of copying should be broader. This would ensure that copyright doctrine most efficiently incentivizes creation, by protecting what is creative yet allowing individuals to build upon existing works.”

        Which I entirely agree with!

        I appreciate you linking me a source that says the says the core goal of copyright is to promote the advancement of science and the arts, ie incentivizing creatives to create.

        “The problem with modern copyright doctrine is not copyright in itself, but the seemingly limitless grant of rights on an insufficiently particularized basis. The solution offered is two-fold: the extension of copyright protection should be more limited, and the allowance of copying should be broader. This would ensure that copyright doctrine most efficiently incentivizes creation, by protecting what is creative yet allowing individuals to build upon existing works.”

        And I totally agree! And if you agree as well, I don’t see why you would have any criticism of authors like GRRM and Jemisin who want to return those incentives.

        source
      • LWD@lemm.ee ⁨10⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        [deleted]

        source

        • -> View More Comments