I think copyright itself might be on its way out. What meaning does a copyright have when I can click "Variations" on anything and get 4 suggestions in 10 seconds? Imagine how good they will be by 2030.
Over many years it has now mostly become a tool for large companies to accumulate rights (on works they didn't create themselves) and monetize them.
Maybe a reform is needed, to find a way back to the original purpose.
No, it wasn’t. Copyright was originally intended to protect the publishers of a work. It was later transformed to nominally focus on the creators, but even this was lobbied for by publishers in their own self-interest after the old law directly protecting them was allowed to lapse, and because it still had the same net effect since realizing value meant licensing to a publisher in most practical cases, so the publishers were still major beneficiaries.
And, of course, US copyrights under the Constitution do not exist for the purpose of protecting creators, instead a private benefit for creators is a mechanism but the purpose is expressly to “promote the progress of science of useful arts”.
At the point of creation something is granted copyright.
Publishers in literature and music are right assholes who’ve created this system. Little middle men rent seeking.
It does need reform but it is for the creators that’s why it’s tied to the creator and not date of publication. Fix your perspective buckaroo
No, under the US Constitution it is for a specified public benefit as its purpose, the private benefit is a mechanism to achieve that.
Under the Statute of Anne, it was nominally for creators (but this was lobbied for by printers after the expiration of earlier laws, and they were the prime beneficiaries in practice.)
The earlier laws were explicitly for printers.
Well, that's false. The actual US Constitution in Article I Section 8 Clause 8 says, "[The Congress shall have power] To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."
That could, possibly one-day provide public benefits, but it doesn't have to. If public benefits happen, they are side-effects. The purpose is for authors and inventors to have exclusive rights in their writings and discoveries. They are never required to publish or advance anything for the public. This is a private protection not a public benefit for a "specific purpose".
The text you quote is explicit: the public benefit—promotion of science and useful arts—is the purpose. Providing benefits to creators is a mechanism for acheiving that purpose, not the purpose itself. That’s what I said before, and it remains true, and you’ve just quoted the bit of the Constitution that says it while claiming it is false.
At least according to most histories of copyright I've seen. Wikipedia seems to agree:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright#Early_dev...
You are talking about modern US copyright law.
But copyright laws (laws around copy) predate the existence of publishers and the declaration of independence of the United States by over a 1000 years.
No, I’m talking mostly about British copyright law prior to the nominal prioritization of creators in the Statute of Anne (1710).
(Techhically, it was focussed on printers rather than publishers, but the separation of function of those is a more modern arrangement.)
You can tell the part you target isn't about modern US copyright law because I later in the same post distinguish all US copyright law under the Constitution (which includes modern US copyright law) from it.
Check out my essay I’ve submitted recently.
println(“foo at {:x} is {:?}”, &foo as *const _ as usize, foo);
And sometimes the network improves,depending on the quality or direction of the output,the client can a valuable critic even without being an expert in the field
(By the way, do you have an objection to my point? I must have missed it.)
"Excellent, let's see how your car goes faster when you push the gas pedal"
My point was that insane amounts of curated fully original works were required to get the output of these generative tools to the "occasionally impressive" level it is at now, and those original works exist precisely thanks to copyright. To say "oh we don't need copyright now" is to saw off the branch on which this hinges.
If you are into this stuff and want to see it become better you should rather promote copyright and differentiation of fully original works.