[BoxOfRain]

> but because AI surprised the copyright industry, it's now too late to enforce copyright like that.

I think I've got whiplash from the way a lot of the tech scene has gone from 'IP troll outfits are malicious actors who make everything worse for everyone else' to 'IP troll outfits are an ethical and effective solution to exploitation in the AI industry'.

I'm not a huge fan of much of the generative AI industry, but is IP maximalism really the answer here? Before 2022 most of us would have agreed that DRM is generally a scourge for example, and the 'copyright industry' are a big part of pushing for the end of general-purpose computing in favour of DRM-controlled appliances. Personally I'd rather go in the opposite direction, copyright lasts for exactly thirty years and after that a work enters the public domain without exception, and I'd weaken anti-circumvention laws too.

[ACCount37]

"Copyright" is, frankly, just an excuse people who hate AI latch onto.

Many of the people who rally against AI now used to rally against Napster being prosecuted by RIAA and the Big Mouse renewing copyright expiration dates once again.

It's not that they suddenly gained an appreciation for the copyright law. It's that they found something they hate more than the big record label megacorps - and copyright became a tool they think they can leverage against it. Very stupid, IMO.

[Levitz]

Same thing with the water arguments, or pollution in general. It's not about those having any weight, it's about being against AI first and building arguments against it second.