[echelon]

Serfdom used to be a real thing.

Dowry payments used to be a real thing.

Butter churning used to be a real thing.

Copyright law is, and will be, mutable.

In just about a year, kids will be making entire Pixar movies from home. (The content will probably be Skibidi toilet related, but of Pixar scale and scope.)

How that reconciles with copyright, you've got me. It doesn't. It's a domain mismatch. It's completely outmoded by what's coming.

And the music industry is equally toast. I can already make an excellent banger song about superhero rodents in under 30 seconds.

[mplewis]

None of what you described is quality content that anyone actually wants to watch.

[resolutebat]

The YouTube watch history of any 13-year-old provides a handy counterexample to your assertion.

Slightly less flippantly, the days when the nation gathered around their TVs to all watch "Leave It To Beaver" at 8pm are long gone, the media landscape has been fragmenting for decades and this is just the next step. My kids don't watch TV shows, they follow YouTubers.

[distortedsignal]

Interestingly, that doesn't matter for copyright.

A six-year-old filmmaker has as much claim to copyright protection as Spielberg and Tarantino. Just because one uploads to YouTube and one is paid millions of dollars by a major movie studio, it doesn't mean that they're different in the eyes of the law.

From what I understand, once a work is created, copyright is assigned to that work's creator. That creator may then license that work however they want. Quality doesn't factor in.