I know he wants to use all the data to train LLMs, but do you think this would positively affect the average person, or would the laws still target the little guys?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] SCmSTR@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Removing all copyright protections would essentially be a reset and would ultimately be a negative for society, even compared to now.

Now, on the trajectory that we're making, we're in a bad place and heading to a much worse place very quickly. We have to do something.

Getting rid of copyright protections entirely is not it. You must have protections for privacy and investment protections that encourage innovation. But where we are right now is entirely too far.

You must also consider AI as a pressing issue in ethics, with a WAY higher priority than copyright protections, but also with copyright protections as a variable.

Nothing is ever simple. Anybody who says anything is simple is manipulating you, and even the truth to that statement, itself, is complicated.

[–] storm@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 15 hours ago

How does copyright protect privacy? I don't see the connection there. I also just disagree that copyright is good for art. Like obviously we can't just not pay artists (without also changing a lot else) but people should not be allowed to own parts of culture.

[–] neon_commie@lemmy.zip 2 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago) (1 children)

You must have protections for privacy and investment protections that encourage innovation.

Bold claim when most innovations are actually discovered by public universities and government research and not "market forces!

[–] SCmSTR@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Let me try to clarify where I stand on that specific issue: I do not care how it comes around, but the point of innovation is for the commonwealth. I just think there needs to be appropriate protections from discouragement of time/resources investment, whatever that is. Too much protections and that's discouraging. Too little is also discouraging.

[–] neon_commie@lemmy.zip 2 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

I don't entirely disagree with you on the utility of "idea protection" or patents but have no illusions anything fair can be implemented under our current neo-liberal "world order".

[–] SCmSTR@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (1 children)

I don't know what neo liberal is or what would order you claim we're in.

I just know that a lot of people hate my opinion on how things should be. Conservatives lose their minds, liberals claim it's impossible, and tankies get frustrated and think me naive.

All I know for sure is that nobody's happier with the system than the people at the top and that's bad.

And that conservatives don't know what the fuck marxism is because they're all illiterate and it drives me fucking crazy. Wait... Does that mean that conservatives are simultaneously the poorest and the richest in society?

[–] neon_commie@lemmy.zip 1 points 17 hours ago

I was being facetious with "world order", neo-liberalism is anything but orderly. And if you're willing to watch here's a good intro to neo-liberalism or this.