• 6 Posts
  • 100 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: December 18th, 2023

help-circle
  • That’s not correct. There are other forms of IP besides copyright, such as trademarks, patents, or even trade secrets.

    What you are saying is somewhat true for US copyrights (and patents) per the copyright clause in the US Constitution. But mind that typically copyrights are owned by the employer of the creator, who may be a writer, even a programmer, photographer, or any other such professional who may not be considered an “artist”.

    You would probably not consider yourself an artist for writing comments here, but you get copyright nevertheless.

    European copyright has a very different philosophy behind it, which does not consider the public at all. It’s quite harmful to the public, actually.










  • He makes a good argument. I think the European experience supports him.

    EU law uses the term “intellectual property”. In fact, “protection of intellectual property” is enshrined as a fundamental right in EU law. When EU politicians demand respect for fundamental rights and values from American tech companies, it implies cracking down on piracy and giving money to copyright owners.

    Applying property thinking to data is responsible for many, maybe most, of the problems that make it so hard to build a tech industry in the EU.


  • To explain what that is: UK Newspapers all printed the same cover page to demand money for copyright owners. They all joined together to make their demand. Newspapers like to market themselves as guardians of democracy. This is what it looks like when they really want something.

    They are spreading a lot of deceptive talking points. So here’s some facts.

    UK copyright law applies in the UK. If the owners’ demands are met, then British people will have to pay owners around the world to use AI. These international owners try to invoke national solidarity by talking about “protecting British creativity”. But that’s a lie. British creatives would have to pay extra for software like photoshop, while the money would go to owners around the world. For example, Reddit would get money for owning the copyrights to the users’ posts.

    Copyright is intellectual property. Like any other property, it is typically owned by the corporation that employed the worker that made it. If the owners are able to lobby their way to some free money, normal workers will not see a cent. Even most authors won’t. The printers, secretaries, janitorial staff, and so on, without whom none of these newspapers would exist, certainly won’t.

    These are daily newspapers. Yesterday’s news are proverbially worthless. All the labor that went into producing these newspapers, including the authors, has been paid off. If these corporations get their wish, they will be able to sell their intellectual property a second time. That’s pure profit.

    If this was about supporting “British creativity”, then you could use taxes to subsidize, for example, rooms for band practice. You could give the BBC more money for journalism. If you’re worried about job losses, you’d be thinking about unemployment benefits. No one is asking for any of that. It’s all about money for property owners around the world.