So people who spend time working on code or art should have exactly zero protection against somebody else just taking their work and using it to make money?
No, but the current system is totally idiotic. Why not have a fixed timeframe i.e. 30-50 years to make money? Life of the author + x years is stupid not only because it's way too long, it keeps going until way after the creator is no longer benefitting, and it can cause issues with works where you don't know who the author is so you can't cleanly say it's old enough not to have copyright.
I'm not sure for most (specifically smaller, who need the most protection) creators this would actually change very much. Media typically makes money in it's first few years of life, not 70 years on.
If you change it to 30-50 years then nothing changes for Sora.
Most of the (obviously infringing) video I've seen is stuff well within the past 30-50 years.
Also, no copyright doesn't mean information free for all.
I still can't generate a fake video, pretend it's real, and then claim you're a criminal or you eat babies or something. Because that's libel.
Why do we have libel laws? Because the alternative is that you piss off Walmart or something and then they go and tell all employers that you're a pedophile and then you starve to death, with the cherry on top of having a tainted legacy. So we definitely need the libel laws.
But that's a problem. The whole premise of Sora is that it generates fake video with the intention of making it as real as possible.
No matter how you cut it, Sora's business model, and moral model, is on shakey grounds.
This does not demonstrate a sound understanding of how the public domain works, why copyright lengths have been extended so ferociously over the last century (it's shareholders who want this), nor the impact it has both on creative process and public conversation.
This is a highly complex question about how legal systems, companies, and individual creatives come in conflict, and cannot be summarized as a positive creative constraint / means to celebrate their works.
I develop copyright material from the letter and the images that I've both sold to studios and own myself. Copyright lengths are there to prevent the shareholder class from rapid exploitation. Once copyright declines to years not decades, shareholders will demand that be exploited rather than new ideas. The public conversation is rather irrelevant as the layperson doesn't have a window into the massive risk, long-term development required to invent new things, that's how copyright is not a referendum, it's a specialized discourse. Yes the idea of long-term copyright developed under work-for-hire or individual ownership can be easily summarized. License, sample, or steal. Those are the windows.
- owners of large platforms who don't care what "content"[0] is successful or if creators get rewarded, as long as there is content to show between ads
- large corporations who can afford to protect their content with DRM
Is that correct?
Do you expect it to play out differently? Game it out in your head.
The vast majority of DRM is cracked very quickly; the only reason DRM cracking tools aren't more widespread is because of copyright law and the idiotic anti-circumvention provisions.
Consider that even DRM'd content is on torrent sites within hours of release.
Vague. Are you talking about reasons to create like the joy of creating? Your bio describes you as a 'tech entrepreneur', not 'DIY tinkerer'. So I'll assume that when you spend a great deal of time entrepreneuring something, you do so with the hope of remuneration. Maybe not by licensing the copyright, but in some form.
Permissive licenses are great in software, where SAAS is an alternative route to getting paid. How does that work if you're a musician, artist, writer, or filmmaker who makes a living selling the rights to your creative output? It doesn't.
> Vague. Are you talking about reasons to create like the joy of creating?
That’s one of them, but I really don’t have to be specific about the reasons. I just have to point out the existence of permissively licensed works. You said:
> Great, you've just removed any incentive for people to make anything.
This is very obviously untrue. Perhaps you meant to say “…you’ve just removed some incentives for people to make some things”?
