New legal lessons from the age of AI. I wonder if we will start with the judges ruling that AI originated music can be copyrighted or not and whether AI trained on copyrighted music has to attribute its creations (to what?).
Imagine how much human resource is spent trying to preserve profits. Imagine your job is to be a lawyer that slows human progress for short term corporate profits. Imagine you are a judge who has to waste time on this case. Imagine you are a lawmaker and instead of fixing US medical, you are getting lunch with a lobbyist trying to make some variant of AI illegal.
All of those people have an existence that is bad for society. I imagine if you prioritize personal profits, its easy to do the job. Its much harder if your world view involves doing good things for society.
If for no other reason than people are really crafty and nearly optimal for wrecking up each other's business if they put their minds to it. Imagine how much human resource is spent trying to preserve profits... Now imagine how much would be spent on preserving anything without a legal system in place. "Nice house you have, hate to see anything happen to it" etc.
I'm clearly not talking about property rights or criminal law.
If you must, I agree with you. But that wasnt the intention of my comment.
... and infringing a valid copyright willfully for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain is a criminal offense in the US (17 U.S.C. 506(A)). It's up to a felony violation.
You can, for personal reasons, assert there's a fundamental difference in kind (and you'd be joining an argument dating back past the founding of the U.S., an argument where Thomas Jefferson once said of protection of intellectual property that "other nations have thought that these monopolies produce more embarrassment than advantage to society"), but in the sense that any law has any real meaning or force, it's exactly as much the law as the law against kicking you out of your own house because I like your house better.
This is literally a property rights case, so if your comment wasn’t about property rights it was wildly out of context.
This may eventually result in regular music subscriptions being priced closer to sample pricing.