I know he wants to use all the data to train LLMs, but do you think this would positively affect the average person, or would the laws still target the little guys?
I would never trust a billionaire to do anything for us. If he doesn’t just carve out an exception for only people like himself at first, he’ll still lobby to have new restrictions on sharing if they threaten his business model.
It’ll end up being a back-and-forth between him and the IP companies, so if he has enough leverage, they’ll just find a way to give him what he wants without doing so for regular folks.
Yeah, that’s about what I expect from a billionaire.
He absolutely doesn’t want to get rid of them, just make large corporations immune from claims or maybe even able to take copyrights away from others. Abolishment of copyright goes against these people’s core beliefs of control, they don’t want copyright gone, they wish to control it.
Nah, they’ll make corporations immune from it but the normal consumer will still have to deal with licensing hell
No, this is a fucking terrible idea and anyone who thinks otherwise has not thought anything through. If you can’t make enough money creating art to sustain yourself, people are going to very quickly make a lot less art.
Anyone here who just wants free content is going to pretty quickly realize that there’s very little new content being made.
I doubt the reduction in content made would affect us badly. Certainly wouldn’t affect me. Most musicians I listen to do not make a living from their music and the ones that do are subsidized heavily by government grants.
Commercialisation of the arts has been an overall negative IMO because it lures audiences into trashiness and away from the quality.
You could argue that removing copyright would take us back to when only mobility could afford the time or have the connections to be commissioned but having connections is already a big factor.
Even if you don’t agree with that you may agree with a UBI ushering in a Renaissance of the arts as suggested by Brian Eno in this 4 minute video.
Yeah, I worry about that with all the LLM slop.
People already can’t make enough money creating art to sustain themselves
Many people can. I’m not saying the current system is perfect and doesn’t need work.
I’m saying no system at all, is much much worse than it is even now.
Making it worse doesn’t help those people who can’t support themselves doing it now.
Please keep in mind Jack Dorsey is just some guy who’s had the same shit idea twice.
deleted by creator
The poor already don’t have copyright laws, and the rich continue to have their safeguards. This is already how it is.
What? You think those laws on the books are for you? No. Only the rich get to enforce those copyright laws.
It’s even worse than saying there’s no copyright laws, because the poor think they have them.
My music that I make with my mouth was claimed by some dmca troll as soon as I uploaded it. YouTube has no incentive to do anything and now my own work has ads on it.
Claim the troll’s videos
they don’t have any. it’s through BMI and it’s all AI generated slop.
He is an American oligarch, bad faith and dishonesty are to be expected in everything they say or do.
People who rule you and people who own the country are threat actors. Yet some how we got adult men larping their talking points and literally simping for these “daddies”
Funny how they suddenly think IP laws are bad ehh
Removing all copyright protections would essentially be a reset and would ultimately be a negative for society, even compared to now.
Now, on the trajectory that we’re making, we’re in a bad place and heading to a much worse place very quickly. We have to do something.
Getting rid of copyright protections entirely is not it. You must have protections for privacy and investment protections that encourage innovation. But where we are right now is entirely too far.
You must also consider AI as a pressing issue in ethics, with a WAY higher priority than copyright protections, but also with copyright protections as a variable.
Nothing is ever simple. Anybody who says anything is simple is manipulating you, and even the truth to that statement, itself, is complicated.
In theory this is great, but in reality this will be used very badly by big corporates and all of this shit world
deleted by creator
That’s a perspective that I had considered.
Rules for thee, but not for me.
Don’t worry, the oligarchs also want to release any content they own as smart contract so ownership is eternal and a driver of blockchains. Then they want to make breaking DRM or smart contracts more heavily punished. “Protection for me, not for thee”
Having “ownership” tied to the Blockchain does fuck all to enforce other people not using it. That’s just a publicly viewable ledger of ownership instead of whatever hidden nonsense we have now. If IP went away (stupid idea) being a contract on a Blockchain doesn’t do anything
Copyrights for good or bad, do protect the little guy. I am sure these mega corps would love to blast their lawsuits out to the little guys and bury them. He is a bad faith actor.
Part of the reason I was skeptical about Bluesky.
Nope. This will end with corporations no longer requiring copyright and the consumer having to pay even more for media to make up for it because fuck you pleb.
They’ll only need to buy one copy
