Comment on Microsoft, OpenAI sued for copyright infringement by nonfiction book authors in class action claim
LWD@lemm.ee 8 months agoIP 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?
Womble@lemmy.world 8 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).
LWD@lemm.ee 8 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.
LWD@lemm.ee 8 months ago
Grimy@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Stifling a writing tool because GRRM wants a payday, on the basis that it can spit out small parts of his work if you specifically ask it too, is the opposite of advancing the art.
…yet allowing individuals to build upon existing works. Its literally the rest of the statement you put in bold, stop trying not to see on purpose.
LWD@lemm.ee 8 months ago
OpenAI is a corporation
I already mentioned that poor authors cannot stand up to thieving corpos like OpenAI. Maybe address the argument, not your strawman.
GRRM has been relatively handwavey about piracy of the movie adaptations of his books, so I’m not sure why you’re acting like he’s evil but somehow giant corporations get the pass from you.
Just because Womble speaks in absolutes doesn’t mean everybody else does. There are already exceptions in American copyright law, advocating for slightly different exceptions is not the same as eliminating it.