"The United States has a strong interest in continuing to develop a robust and competitive artificial intelligence industry that sets the standard for the practice and procedure of AI use globally," the brief reads.
Some things (field of medicine/environmentalism) can’t wait 15 years for an effective democratised solution.
The idea that someone would be rewarded for limiting access to such solution sickens me.
Naturally they would deserve global praise possible in the form of a reward for creating the idea that changed the world for the better, but capitalism is designed to not do so.
To often in industry the actual creative inventor gets nothing, while the company they work under gets the patent to exploits the demand.
It would be way less of a problem for sure, but not moot. An individual inventor can still stop other people from using an identical solution simply for being first to file the paperwork.
Most big authors and artists dedicate their lives to their craft because, and this is true, once they finish writing a book or recording a song, they’ll get paid for people who buy or stream them. Without copyright, there’s zero reason to pay them.
Seems highly arbitrary. I always think about how early airplane tech was almost all developed in Europe because no one in America could work on anything adjacent after the Wright Bros patented their flyer. Intellectual property is intellectual theft.
15 years of non transferable copyright encourages creativity.
Some things (field of medicine/environmentalism) can’t wait 15 years for an effective democratised solution.
The idea that someone would be rewarded for limiting access to such solution sickens me.
Naturally they would deserve global praise possible in the form of a reward for creating the idea that changed the world for the better, but capitalism is designed to not do so.
To often in industry the actual creative inventor gets nothing, while the company they work under gets the patent to exploits the demand.
If employees owned the means of production, this would be a moot point… Just pointing that out for people.
It would be way less of a problem for sure, but not moot. An individual inventor can still stop other people from using an identical solution simply for being first to file the paperwork.
Sure, evidence?
Most big authors and artists dedicate their lives to their craft because, and this is true, once they finish writing a book or recording a song, they’ll get paid for people who buy or stream them. Without copyright, there’s zero reason to pay them.
Using existing data on recordings and books we obtain a point estimate of around 15 years for optimal copyright term
Edit: Who down votes an academic reference?
Seems highly arbitrary. I always think about how early airplane tech was almost all developed in Europe because no one in America could work on anything adjacent after the Wright Bros patented their flyer. Intellectual property is intellectual theft.
It comes from this paper. Using existing data on recordings and books we obtain a point estimate of around 15 years for optimal copyright term
It makes sense that some copyright protection is beneficial to society as it encourages new works.
But I think the important part is to ensure copyright is non transferable. Then large corporations cannot build (and charge for) large libraries.