But they should also have foreseen the routes for abuse. That's also their job.
The DMCA is a disaster.
The DMCA is a disaster.
The better question is: why have the people's representatives failed to protect their interests? Why didn't they foresee the abuses that hurt us all?
Nobody cares about copyright.
There is a vocal minority of us who do. But we're only slightly more useful on it than the privacy advocates, both sharing a good chunk of people who are lazy or nihlistic about the political process to the point of being politically irrelevant. As a result, a representative who brings up copyright reform gets like one call in support and zero net new votes. Meanwhile, they get powerful and patient adversaries from the Big Tech to the record companies and their billionaire artists.
Artificial Intelligence is going to change how we work. Many top software engineers on Hacker News may be ok for a while. Although everyone could use help.
But already many artists and junior engineers feel pressure. Lack of copyright protection can make that even worse for many. These are allies and people who we mentor.
Just brainstorming, Social Purpose Corporations could provide innovative co-op opportunities for artists and engineers. That's just one example.
I don't see the management class failing to forsee the financial reality in the global workplace. But I do worry about dependents facing division and hate. Bully that, right?
I can't fucking forsee every possibility, traps and all, though. Maybe not social purpose corporations but just hyper-incubators that enable a million small indy corps. Man, I'm imagining Jar Jar binks manning the hyperspace lychgates across from the content generators.
Sorry, stupid digression. I'm sorry for wasting cycles on that.
Whether AI decimates the likelihoods of everyone is only more likely with unchecked corpo power in control of everything.
AI is just the latest iteration of endless corporate abuses. They think copyright exists to keep the likes of us in line while they get to do whatever they want. If we infringe copyright, they compare us to raping and pillaging high seas pirates but then they turn around and say it's OK to infringe copyright on a massive scale so long as they launder it via AI first.
I want intellectual property gone so that we can do the same. I want them to be forced to open their weights too.
Because there are no "people's representatives" after the voting is done. They just go with the biggest bidder. That's why companies are spending bilions on lobbying.
> If the user believes that the material was removed as a result of mistake or misidentification of the material, the user may submit a counter-notice requesting the reinstatement of the material. To be effective, a counter-notice must contain substantially the following information:
> (i) a physical or electronic signature of the user;
> (ii) identification of the material that has been removed or to which access has been disabled and the location at which the material appeared before it was removed or access to it was disabled;
> (iii) a statement under penalty of perjury that the user has a good faith belief that the material was removed or disabled as a result of mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled;
> (iv) the user’s name, address, and telephone number, and a statement that the subscriber consents to the jurisdiction of Federal District Court for the judicial district in which the address is located, or if the subscriber’s address is outside of the United States, for any judicial district in which the service provider may be found, and that the subscriber will accept service of process from the person who provided notification under subsection (c)(1)(C) or an agent of such person.
You have to give them information to sue you (or do other nefarious things), but they don't have to provide you with information that say, you could use to sue them for perjury or try to recover damages from the time it was taken down.
> (i) the signature of the copyright owner or an authorized agent;
> (ii) identification of the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed, or, if multiple works are on a single site, a representative list of such works;
> (iii) identification of the infringing material or activity (or the reference or link to such material) and information reasonably sufficient to permit the OSP to locate the material (or the reference or link);
> (iv) contact information for the copyright owner or authorized agent;
> (v) a statement that the person sending the notice has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law; and
> (vi) a statement that the information in the notice is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the person sending the notice is authorized to act on behalf of the copyright owner .
I agree the system is intentionally asymmetric, because it was built by people who understand how quickly material proliferates once it’s been posted to the Internet. That makes it abusable to chill speech, as in this case. But the law was also written with an expectation that anonymity does not guarantee full participation in civil society.
"Contact information" could just be an email address, or even a social media handle.