Comment by bitmasher9 18 hours ago
We cannot get ride of it without finding a way to pay the creators that generate copyrighted works.
I’m personally more in favor of significantly reducing the length of the copy right. I think 20-30 years is an interesting range. Artist get roughly a career length of time to profit off their creations, but there is much less incentive for major corporations to buy and horde IP.
The thing about creators is that most of them are paid extremely poorly, and some of them get insanely rich. Joanne Rowling has received more money than a reasonable person could use for her wizard books, but millions of bloggers feeding much more data into AI training sets will never see a cent for their work. For starting authors selling books, this can easily be the difference between writing another book or giving up and taking up another job.
At the moment, there's also a huge difference between who does and who doesn't pay. If I put the HP collection on my website, you betcha Joanne Rowling's team is going to try to take it down. However, because OpenAI designed an AI system where content cannot be removed from its knowledge base and because their pockets are lined with cash for lawyers, it's practically free to violate whatever copyright rules it wants.
I do not think it's creators that are the constituency holding up deprecation.
As a full-time professional musician, I'm convinced I'll benefit much more from its deprecation than continuing to flog it into posterity. I don't think I know any musicians who believe that IP is career-relevant for them at this point.
(Granted, I play bluegrass, which has never fit into the copyright model of music in the first place)
We barely pay creators as it is for generating copyrighted works. Nearly every copywritten work is available on the internet, for free, right now. And creators are still getting paid, albeit poorly, but that's a constant throughout history.