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.
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.
Because they can make money doing that. There has to be balance, having no copyright protection at all obvious would be disastrous.
> this great knowledge and then leave and start their own company
That's great, it's not illegal.
> doesn't allow most non competes
Cool. Also tangential and has no relation to copyright.
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.
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.
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.
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...).
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.