Skip to main content

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.

A new form of copyright, where only you will ever be in control

www.gibiris.org
#fediverse #Copyright
in reply to Éibhear 🔭

Éibhear 🔭
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...

  • ... register the work with a copyright authority (so that everyone knows it's availing of this new "right");
  • ... agree that every copy of the work will also be registered and tracked by this same authority;
  • ... agree that once the work is registered for this type of new control it can never be removed from it; and
  • ... agree that upon the death of the creator, every copy of the work -- no matter *why* the copy was created -- will be destroyed.


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.

in reply to Éibhear 🔭

Éibhear 🔭
Éibhear 🔭
•
... and it therefore has no value; it should be totally destroyed.

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.

in reply to Éibhear 🔭

BeAware :fediverse:
BeAware :fediverse:
• •
copyright is automatically applied in the US to created works. No action needed.
in reply to BeAware :fediverse:

Éibhear 🔭
Éibhear 🔭
•

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.

in reply to Éibhear 🔭

2¢
2¢
• •
@BeAware great for content owners with legal departments and dedicated clerical staff.
@BeAware :fediverse:
in reply to 2¢

Éibhear 🔭
Éibhear 🔭
•

My new #copyright will be available only to individual creators. Corporations will have to stick with the current system:

As this new copyright will be non-transferable, you will not be permitted to assign it to any other person, or to any corporate entity. Corporations will not be able to access this new form of copyright, and will continue to use the current regime.

Creativity is a personal act; this new right will only ever vest with the individual person who created the work, if that's their preference.

#Copyright

BeAware :fediverse: reshared this.

in reply to Éibhear 🔭

2¢
2¢
• •

@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.

@BeAware :fediverse:
in reply to 2¢

Éibhear 🔭
Éibhear 🔭
•
Not sure of the benefits to society that requires creative work to be destroyed.

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.

⇧