Copyright should be a much shorter, more reasonable length, and then this whole issue would be a moot point because there would more than enough in the public domain for the corporations to train their AI while also not restricting access to individuals and open source projects to do the same.
The real issue at hand is that corporations like Facebook have literally billions at their disposal to fight this in court. The Pirate Bay admins did not, despite being charged with profiting wildly off their media sharing site. Facebook has arguably made so much more off of their AI offerings than the admins of the tiny Pirate Bay team could have dreamed of. For fucks sake Peter Sunde's username was "brokep" which I always assumed stood for "Broke Peter" as in "Peter has no money."
We have yet to see if the courts in the USA will make this a hypocritical outcome where small players like the Pirate Bay who legitimately did not make that much money went to prison, Aaron Schwartz was threatened with life in prison and committed suicide, but somehow it will be okay for giant corporations to do because they made so much money doing it. It's definitely possible, America feels like a country where as long as you do the crime big enough, it stops being treated as a crime and instead people pat you on the back and reward for criming so hard you broke the justice system and instead it just gets labeled "good business sense."

[–] carotte@lemmy.blahaj.zone 19 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

imo copyright should be like patents. 20 years after the copyright was filed, it becomes public domain.

that’s the compromise at least, ideally copyright should not exist at all

[–] frongt@lemmy.zip 15 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

That's what it used to be, until Disney lobbied to extend it so that they wouldn't lose Mickey and their other cash cows.

[–] p03locke@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 hour ago

Mark Twain started this nonsense.

[–] Micromot@piefed.social 41 points 14 hours ago (3 children)

I don't unterstand why copyright would last longer than the lifetime of the authors who were part of the creative process. It doesn't make sense that it can be transferred like it is

[–] raman_klogius@ani.social 30 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Because Disney lobbied for the time to be raised again and again

[–] Micromot@piefed.social 4 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

I know why it is the case but it doesn't make sense from a logical perspective that isn't capitalistically oriented

[–] frongt@lemmy.zip 2 points 8 hours ago

Well ... yeah? Of course a capitalist decision only makes sense under capitalism.

[–] boonhet@sopuli.xyz 10 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Hell, let's compromise and say 20 years after the author's death. In case they have a small child at the time of death and said child's other parent isn't capable of the kid's upkeep, a little extra would help.

But what is it right now? 70 years? Literally no excuse for that.

[–] Micromot@piefed.social 2 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

At some point it just becomes a tool for making money off of other people's works

[–] BladeFederation@piefed.social 1 points 17 minutes ago

And look where it has left us: bereft of creativity.

[–] exaybachae@startrek.website 5 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Why do they last more than a year?

Why do they exist at all?

[–] Micromot@piefed.social 20 points 13 hours ago

I understand them lasting for a certain time so the authors can get a compensation for what they have worked for. Of course people are allowed to quote things and use the content in a transformative way like in the German urheberrechts laws.

Without royalties or copyright it's difficult to earn enough money for living as an artist. If there was proper support and compensation for artists there would be no reason for copyright law.