[flats]

I don’t believe this is true? I’m pretty sure that you’re prohibited from making money from that fan fiction, not from writing it at all. So I don’t understand the claim that copyright “massively stifles” creativity. There are of course examples of people not being able to make money on specific “ideas” because of copyright laws, but that doesn’t seem to me to be “massively stifling” creativity itself, especially given that it also protects and supports many people generating these ideas. And if we got rid of copyright law, wouldn’t we be in that exact place, where people wouldn’t be allowed to make money off of creative endeavors?

I mean, owning an idea is kinda gross, I agree. I also personally think that owning land is kinda gross. But we live in a capitalist society right now. If we allow AI companies to train LLMs on copyrighted works without paying for that access, we are choosing to reward these companies instead of the humans who created the data upon which these companies are utterly reliant for said LLMs. Sam Altman, Elon Musk, and all the other tech CEOs will benefit in place of all of the artists I love and admire.

That, to me, sucks.

[Zambyte]

> And if we got rid of copyright law, wouldn’t we be in that exact place, where people wouldn’t be allowed to make money off of creative endeavors?

This is addressed in the second article I linked.

[SketchySeaBeast]

Is it though? All I see is hand-waving.

[93po]

I will also add: there are tons of examples of companies taking down not for profit fanction or fan creation of stuff. Nintendo is very aggressive about this. The publisher of Harry Potter has also aggressively taken down not for profit fanfiction.

> If we allow AI companies to train LLMs on copyrighted works without paying for that access, we are choosing to reward these companies instead of the humans who created the data upon which these companies are utterly reliant for said LLMs.

It's interesting how much parallel there is here to the idea that company owners reap the rewards of their employee's labor when doing no additional work themselves. The fruits of labors should go to the individuals who labor, I 100% agree.

[93po]

Copyright isn't about distribution, it's about creation. In reality the chances of getting in trouble is basically zero if you don't distribute it - who would know? But technically any creation, even in private, is violating copyright. Doesn't matter if you make money or put it on the internet.

There is fair use, but fair is an affirmative defense to infringing copyright. By claiming fair use you are simultaneously admitting infringement. The idea that you have to defend your own private expression of ideas based on other ideas is still wrong in my view.

[Zambyte]

> Copyright isn't about distribution, it's about creation

This is exactly wrong. You can copy all of Harry Potter into your journal as many times as you want legally (creating copies) so long as you do not distribute it.