I've seen a lot of concern on the #Fediverse about how AI companies and (of all organisations!) the Internet Archive are engaged is massive plagiarism and content theft.
The problem here may, in fact, be in how #copyright itself works.
So, I'm proposing a new form of (optional) copyright that creators can apply to their works that will protect them from what they see is theft by these companies and organisations.
gibiris.org/eo-blog/posts/2024…
You're all free to copy this proposal and bring it to your legislators to see if they will build the legal framework.
Éibhear 🔭
in reply to Éibhear 🔭 • •The summary is this: A creator can get absolute, total, unrestrained control over any and every form of copying of a work (or any recognisable portion of it), regardless of the purpose of the copying, and no one else can avail of things like Fair Use or Fair Dealing when handling the work.
Any and every form of copying of the work must be granted permission on a case-by-case basis.
To get this level of control, however, the author must...
If the purpose of creating a work is purely and solely to make money from it, then once you're dead you can't make any money from it, and it therefore has no value; it should be totally destroyed.
Éibhear 🔭
in reply to Éibhear 🔭 • •If you think it has a value that would extend beyond the end of your life, then you sign up for the current deal and let the world take the steps it believes are necessary to preserve it.
BeAware :fediverse:
in reply to Éibhear 🔭 • • •Éibhear 🔭
in reply to BeAware :fediverse: • •Normal copyright, yes. My new special copyright would require registration to allow the creator have these additional controls.
(also, while the U.S. automatically grants copyright, I understand it requires the copyright to be registered before filing a law suit claiming infringement)
BeAware :fediverse: reshared this.
2¢
in reply to Éibhear 🔭 • • •Éibhear 🔭
in reply to 2¢ • •My new #copyright will be available only to individual creators. Corporations will have to stick with the current system:
BeAware :fediverse: reshared this.
2¢
in reply to Éibhear 🔭 • • •@BeAware I was referring to individual creators with legal departments and clerical staff at their di$po$al.
Individuals who are free to enter into contracts with other entities. I.e., individuals.
Not sure of the benefits to society that requires creative work to be destroyed.
Éibhear 🔭
in reply to 2¢ • •This is the main point of my proposal: those complaining about their works being consumed legally (which is my current understanding of how LLMs actually work) or copied legally (which is what libraries do, including the Internet Archive) either don't like or don't understand the point of the copyright trade-off.
If they don't like the trade-off, they can avail of my new type of copyright, but will have to accept that the work will not contribute to society.
If they want the work to be part of their legacy, they should accept how copyright works now.
2¢
in reply to Éibhear 🔭 • • •