>corporation makes product
garbagemen have insane unions and mafia backing, they make bank
The garbage men also do something whose dereliction would be quickly noticed. People would be relieved if every web designer dropped dead and couldn't justify his paycheck by changing shit around, again.
And I am surprised someone hasn't attempted this exact point. What prevents a copyright holder from preemptively declaring that certain uses of their work are prohibited? Every VHS tape, DVD, Blueray disc, compact cassette tape, compact disc, etc, has always had a declaration to the effect that the material on the media is copyrighted and licensed only for personal home performances of that material, and that any other possible uses are prohibited. Yes, the courts have upheld some fair use cases that are clearly within the spirit of the original intention of home performances, like making personal mix tapes, or recording TV shows to watch later. That doesn't change the fact that the otherwise general prohibition of doing anything else with that media but using it for a home performance of that media's content has also been upheld in the courts.
And this is why I'm surprised the AI companies themselves haven't pushed for something like this.
Federal law prevents it. What you're describing is what is called "pseudo-copyright", and it's barred by federal law. You don't get to construct by contract a property right that is rooted in copyright which is already covered by copyright law.
Federal copyright law and existing case law on the legality of scraping which preclude this very scenario.
Why not just actually embrace XLibre at this point? XOrg is being deliberately killed by corpo faggots and ZOG slaves (commiepedotroons)
The phrase "chatbot code" is a giant signal in of itself that he doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to AI code. If he is also a leftist politisperg, what value does he provide?
Why would you assume that the same people who make software for profit would just make it for free? CAD is better than Blender because CAD has a financial incentive to be better. Abolishing copyright wouldn't force Autodesk to give away CAD for free, they would just shut operations down because there's no longer a point to continue. The fact that CAD is superior to Blender merely proves this truth.
I never said they couldn't charge for it, im saying that they shouldn't be allowed to sue someone into the ground for copying bytes of data on their own hardware. I don't get why people think that being against copyright means that you can't charge for your labor, you just don't get a government-granted monopoly to legally harass and destroy people for doing what they wish with information (how nearly all of human history worked pre-copyright). If they want to charge for their software, there is nothing wrong with that, in fact I think projects that care about software freedom should do it more to gain funding if they're not non-profit backed.
In before someone makes the "but without copyright, competition will just steal my software and charge for it without giving me a cent" argument.
I've always found that to be the weakest of them, literally no other industry except information gets to demand government protection from innovation. horse sellers never got to put bans on people buying cars so the carriage industry doesn't get outcompeted, I never understood why copyright got to be the exception. my feeling is that most people have been psyop'd by propaganda into thinking people have some moral right to control the non-scarce information they labored to produce, which is funny because here in America, copyright is explicitly built as an incentive system back when map and book publishing was still expensive.
Because you can't charge for your labor if the product of that labor can be obtained for free. Copyright exists to prevent unauthorized distribution of intellectual property because free distribution removes the monetary incentive, but that same protection also encourages the creation of new works and innovations. The Founding Fathers implemented copyright into the Constitution as legal doctrine specifically to encourage the growth of original works in the United States.
No, we've always had an analogue for copyright, they were called guilds. You think that intellectual property was any more accessible under a guild system than under copyright? Let's go back to the Worshipful Company of Stationers and Newspaper Makers.
Blender does exactly this and they struggle financially. There exist Youtubers on Patreon who make more money than the Blender foundation.
That's not how copyright works nor is it its purpose, you're twisting the facts to meet the premise.
Yet those same car companies make use of trademarks, patents and copyright to protect their brands, engineering and vehicle designs.
They certainly tried. The US implemented red flag laws when cars first started appearing there, which required a man to walk in front of a car with a red flag to warn people it was coming. This restricted the utility of the car for what should be obvious reasons. This was a protectionist law at the behest of several groups, including farriers and other horse-related trades. These laws eventually evolved into the road safety laws that are still in use today.
