[spudlyo]

> And I am for the destruction of IP on all ends.

While I'm not unsympathetic to the plight of creatives, and their need to eat, I feel like the pendulum has swung so far to the interests of the copyright holders and away from the needs of the public that the bargain is no longer one I support. To the extent that AI is helping to expose the absurdity of this system, I'm all for it.

I don't think "burn it all down" is the answer, but I'd love to see the pendulum swing back our way.

[paxys]

Because copyright laws rarely serve small independent creatives, but rather corporations like Disney that are in the business of hoarding and monetizing culture.

[DamnInteresting]

While true, 'rarely' ought not be conflated with 'never.' I am a small, independent creator, and I've used copyright laws many times over the years to stop larger entities from raiding my catalog for content. Of course now Anthropic et al. are gobbling up such catalogs for indirect misappropriation, with no sign of consequences, so perhaps copyright has truly shrunk to a one-way street favoring the major players.

[logicprog]

Yeah, I would argue that, just systemically, intellectual property laws can't really do anything but overwhelmingly serve the interests of the wealthy and mega corporations. I also think they're ethically wrong and run counter to the kind of artistic and information culture that I would prefer, but those are arguments more people are likely to disagree on.

[lofaszvanitt]

Maybe you don't have a clear picture about it. Just because you have nothing to protect, coz you are not creative, it doesn't mean noone should have that capability.