• CosmoNova@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    1 day ago

    To my understanding, and excuse me if I‘m wrong because I‘m not a lawyer but that‘s not what the fucking law says? You either uphold copyright law or abandon it. There is no middle way and if courts disagree with you, your stance doesn‘t really matter here.

    • General_Effort@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      20 hours ago

      They got you hoodwinked there.

      They don’t like to talk about it, but the US founding fathers were raging leftists (although that terminology didn’t exist yet). The framers of the constitution had no intention to create a class of intellectual landlords extracting rent from the people. That is why copyright is strictly limited in the constitution.

      [the United States Congress shall have power] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause

      The language is archaic. Useful Arts means inventions and Science means knowledge. The economic consequences of copyright are very much at issue.

      That AI training is (generally) Fair Use is a no-brainer. It’s actually much harder to justify copyrights for entertainment products.