Oddbean new post about | logout

Notes by c4a1674c | export

 Remedies: where lofty ideals about IP go to die 
 Super excited for our conversation about generative #AI and #copyright at Silicon Flatirons this week, with the bonus addition of the amazing Sarah Jeong to the lineup! https://siliconflatirons.org/events/2023-10-06-generative-ai-and-copyright/ 
 Just in case there was any doubt, industrial rightsholders' beef with generative AI is about getting paid, not about protecting artists from displacement. https://news.bloomberglaw.com/artificial-intelligence/getty-to-debut-its-own-artificial-intelligence-image-generator?source=newsletter&item=headline&region=digest 
 nostr:npub1r673rxmdxdeluclpfsp255wdca3rayc8cycxrc47dksx56dsv5vqqkevpa well, I would argue that th... 
 @a0b872c9 in practice, I very much agree! Speaking only in an aspirational sense. 
 @a0b872c9 copyright cares in principle a lot about preservation—in the U.S., at least, a rich public domain is supposed to be the goal. It's become unmoored from that in practice, of course, but important to keep it centered in policy/political discourse as a primary function of the copyright system! 
 Teaching #copyright this semester is a good reminder that there is a serious frog-boiling problem in IP. People talk about copyright like it's some kind of well-reasoned and founded enterprise, and there certainly is an endless parade of case law. But almost nothing is coherent or consistent or cleanly moored to constitutional principles. Almost every doctrine is framed by cases bursting at the seams with amateur art criticism, bias, intrinsic and extrinsic contradictions, and vibes-determinism.