[throwaway09223]

> Following this line of thought, do you think that all code from all software should be open source and publicly available

Let's help shape this thought: Copyright should be abolished entirely. It is one of many monetization schemes and its negative effects greatly outweigh its positives.

We know people won't stop writing software in the absence of copyright. We know they won't stop writing books, singing songs, etc. Copyright is not the primary motivator for either science or art.

Will we need new monetization structures? Of course. But generally speaking we already have them where it matters.

End copyright entirely.

[mahogany]

> Let's help shape this thought: Copyright should be abolished entirely. It is one of many monetization schemes and its negative effects greatly outweigh its positives.

Even if you're right in principle (and I would love new monetization structures), this will never happen in reality.

Meanwhile, this idealism will get applied asymmetrically in the real world. If you (or the comment I was replying to) say "Copilot is fine, all code should be publicly available anyway", it downplays the fact that this wish will never happen with big players like Microsoft and will only happen with little players like anyone who used Github to host their code. The big player will typically hide their code behind copyright and lawyers to enforce it, whereas the little players have no similar recourse.

So, I see the issue as an exploitation, as Microsoft is selling a product built on the little players and not the big players. The debate around whether copyright should exist at all, while interesting, is not that relevant to most of the concerns being aired in the context of Copilot.

[throwaway09223]

Yes, I agree the asymmetry needs to be addressed and the rules need to be enforced as they currently stand.

> this will never happen in reality.

Don't be so sure. These kinds of changes start with education.

[mahogany]

Agreed, I was a bit pessimistic when I wrote that. Amended: "will not happen soon enough".

[bobmaxup]

> Copyright is not the primary motivator for either science or art

Having a way to own works is probably pretty important to either of those endeavors, right?

[throwaway09223]

No, I really don't think that it is.

There is no such as "owning" a work. We use that as a euphemism for owning copyrights, and the only function of copyrights are to prevent others from making copies. To prevent others from sharing.

The question is whether the monetization model presented by copyright is a net positive for the author, after accounting for its chilling effect on communications for all other people in the world.

The answer is almost certainly "no," as empirically demonstrated by entire segments of IP work opting out of copyright. The open source model clearly demonstrates that you do not need to own a work to fund it or monetize it. There are similar models in other areas of art and science which allow for the funding of works without preventing others from copying them.