Great steps in the right direction. Now the EU only needs to ensure property is not stolen by ai companies. Essentially if you cant prove your model has been trained on content you have licensed then selling it should be illegal.
Copyright has been one of the primary driving forces behind human progress over the last couple hundreds of years. But sure, let's get rid of it... cause it's cool (or edgy, or whatever...)
Not because it's edgy, but because it's the right and ethical thing to do. Free culture and free software, opponents of copyright, has driven much innovation over the last few decades.
> Not because it's edgy, but because it's the right and ethical thing to do
Also, utterly delusional. That is unless you don't see any problem living in a world with no movies, no tv shows, barely any books, a lot less music, video games etc. etc.
> Free culture and free software,
Opensource software has only been really successful in areas where it's a cost centre and not the end product. Which is why corporations are willing to fun its development. I'll let you figure out the implications of that yourself.
People sharing or even stealing other people's intellectual property rights has been an even bigger driving force of human progress.
It's why places like San Francisco are the tech center of the world.
The reason being, that all of the tech employees will often get all this great knowledge and then leave and start their own company, or at a minimum transfer that knowledge to other companies.
The fact that California doesn't allow most non competes is an amazing example of how sharing knowledge has created amazing progress.
Indeed it is great that people can take knowledge and share it with others!
More stuff like that should be legal. Using other's knowledge should be expanded and should become even more legal by getting rid of laws that prevent information from being shared.
That's my whole point. It is an example where the sharing of knowledge and ideas is actually the large driver of innovation.
Stealing and sharing ideas promotes lots of innovation. Because workers take their knowledge and share it with new companies that they join.
> Also tangential and has no relation to copyright.
No it's not tangential.
It's completely related to the idea that sharing knowledge promotes innovation.
> Because they can make money doing that.
Indeed. People can indeed make money by sharing and stealing knowledge. That's my whole point!
It promotes innovation and allows people to even make money. Glad you agree.
> Indeed. People can indeed make money by sharing and stealing knowledge. That's my whole point!
> It promotes innovation and allows people to even make money. Glad you agree.
Only because copyright laws and similar protections exist.
But I'm sorry, I can't really say that I agree with you because you're being so vague that I don't really understand what you are actually saying.
Right.. it's also called 'news.ycombinator' which is certainly not an organization which would ever support abolishing copyright. Besides it's also a terrible idea, not having copyright would stifle innovation for years.
It's probably one of the best things humanity ever came up with (good luck making money being a writer in the the pre copyright days...).
People like you must've thought science and art and writing and other shit didn't exist before currency. Like you need a monetary incentive to get a human to do anything.
And people like you must learn not to think (if you do actually think at all) in binary terms all the time (and maybe consider reading a history book or two).
Yes it existed, at a massively smaller scale.
> Like you need a monetary incentive to get a human to do anything.
So we agree? Or was that a question? Because the answer is yes. Without copyright it was almost impossible (and still largely is) for any creator to make a living without being independently wealthy/being funded by a third party.
If you're fine living in a world with almost no books (especially no fiction) and approximately zero non ultra low cost TV/movies (unless you count ads which would effectively become the only way of funding anything substantial..) etc. than sure maybe copyright is not really necessary.
Sure, but abolishing all corpyright means that owned by corporations too. Let's see microsoft's source code. It won't be of quality, but as soon as that will be used for training ml i would agree to mine being used.
Why would they ever show it to anyone? Without copyright we'll go back to the middle ages with every craftsman/(modern equivalent) hiding their methods, techniques and technologies from everyone else the best they can (and consequently way less innovation). Also, we'd no longer have any movies, almost no books, music etc. bug I guess literally returning to the dark ages is what these silly "abolish all copyright" people want.
Sure, just like we had land vehicles before trains and automobiles. I doubt most people would be particularly enthusiastic about going back to horse-carts (of course some like you wouldn't have any issues with that just to prove some delusional points) this is no different whatsoever.
> With the availability of tools and reverse-engineering techniques, nothing is truly secret anymore.
The implications of that being?
> copyright cartel.
I assure you that corporations would do a lot better than individuals or small-scale professional content creators.
e.g. if there were no copyright Amazon and publishers (the ones who survive) would still throw a few pennies towards some authors but they (the authors) would be in an inconceivably weaker position that they are now.
In the US, the burden of proof is with the regulators, but there's higher liability than in the EU which is supposed to offset it. That usually applies to safety / fitness for purpose, though, not copyright: I don't think the arguments transfer from one to the other.
