Comment by drnick1
4 months ago
Intellectual property should be abolished or greatly limited. It rarely serves its intended purpose (rewarding authors/creators) and instead creates rents and dangerous monopolies.
A related issue that suggests that the copyright system is broken is that it isn't equally enforced everywhere. The rest of the world freely copies books, drugs, and tech in any way they please, so all it does in the end is inflate prices for U.S. consumers, who effectively subsidize the rest of the world.
A few years ago, I checked how many subscriptions I had to get in order to watch all games of my club in the season (in France).
I was ridiculous : 2.5 providers for the league (Canal+ with their "sports" pack for some games + Bein Sport), RMC Sport for the euro cups, Eurosport for the French Cup, and Infosport+ (a Canal+ channel but not included in their sports pack, go figure), the total was close to 115€/month (that's close to a full month of salary at minimum wage). All with a 12-months subscription, even if the channel (like Eurosport or Infosport+) may not broadcast one single game of the team (related to cup draws).
20 years ago, you could watch ALL French football with only TF1/FR2/FR3 (free TV Channels) and Canal+ for €30/month.
When the LFP decided to split games to different broadcasters, everything started to go South. And this year, they couldn't find any broadcaster for the league, so they had to create their own channel, which can broadcast only 8 games per match day, since Bein still has a contract for the 9th one.
I felt generative AI has weakened the argument against intellectual property.
Why so? I dislike the "AI everywhere" fad, but it's hard to argue LLMs and AI in general aren't a form of technological progress. And generative AI happened partly because IP laws were basically disregarded.
What I meant is that generative AI makes for the case to strengthen intellectual properties laws.
Hence I said "against".