> training on copyrighted data without a similar licensing agreement is also a type of market harm, because it deprives the copyright holder of a source of revenue
I would respond to this by
1. authors don't actually get revenue from royalties, instead it's all about add revenue which leads to enshittification. If they were to live on royalties they would die of hunger, artists, copywriters and musicians.
2. copyright is increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few companies and don't really benefit the authors or the readers
3. actually the competition to new creative works is not AI, but old creative works that have been accumulating for 25 years on the web
I don't think restrictive copyright is what we need. Instead we have seen people migrate from passive consumption to interactivity, we now prefer games, social networks and search engines to TV, press and radio. Can't turn this trend back, it was created by the internet. We have now wikipedia, github, linux, open source, public domain, open scientific publications and non-restrictive environments for sharing and commenting.
If we were to take the idea of protecting copyrights to the extreme, it would mean we need to protect abstract ideas not just expression, because generative AI can easily route around that. But if we protected abstractions from reuse, it would be a disaster for creativity. I just think copyright is a dead man walking at this point.
I would respond to this by
1. authors don't actually get revenue from royalties, instead it's all about add revenue which leads to enshittification. If they were to live on royalties they would die of hunger, artists, copywriters and musicians.
2. copyright is increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few companies and don't really benefit the authors or the readers
3. actually the competition to new creative works is not AI, but old creative works that have been accumulating for 25 years on the web
I don't think restrictive copyright is what we need. Instead we have seen people migrate from passive consumption to interactivity, we now prefer games, social networks and search engines to TV, press and radio. Can't turn this trend back, it was created by the internet. We have now wikipedia, github, linux, open source, public domain, open scientific publications and non-restrictive environments for sharing and commenting.
If we were to take the idea of protecting copyrights to the extreme, it would mean we need to protect abstract ideas not just expression, because generative AI can easily route around that. But if we protected abstractions from reuse, it would be a disaster for creativity. I just think copyright is a dead man walking at this point.