• floquant@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    You probably should’ve because yeah, the way AI companies are treating creative works is disgusting and downright wrong, but copyright law has very much been broken ever since the Internet became a thing. It’s just silly to treat works published on the internet the same way you treat books, paintings and DVDs, not to talk about the issue of jurisdiction on an entity that transcends borders . Aside from that, the laws have been “evolving” to the advantage of big “IP holders” and against the public for a century. A copyright being valid for 70/120 years after the death of the author makes no fucking sense. It should be public domain the day after.

    • Tweet@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      If it was the day after they died, mightn’t that have an unintended consequence of making it more likely that copyright holders would start “falling out of windows” just when it’s convenient for producers and AI crooks to snaffle up their content, royalty-free?

        • Tweet@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 hours ago

          Well yeah, it is currently. But not if the work becomes PD when you die, as OP is suggesting.

        • Tweet@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 hours ago

          So you’re an author and the only thing between a billion dollar studio and a royalty-free production of your work (that you have no creative input into) is your own death. And you’d feel fine and safe with that because “murder is illegal”?

          It’s hard to get away unnoticed with producing a work that infringes copyright, since they tend to have to be released to the public, and from a known source. Getting away with murder is a cinch in comparison.