88 lines
6.6 KiB
Plaintext
88 lines
6.6 KiB
Plaintext
You
|
|
copyright policy and its impact on society
|
|
AI
|
|
AI Interviewer
|
|
That's a very broad and important topic. To begin, what specific aspects of copyright policy's impact on society are you most interested in exploring?
|
|
U
|
|
You
|
|
let's talk about the ways it actually hurts artists
|
|
AI
|
|
AI Interviewer
|
|
That's an interesting perspective. Could you elaborate on some of the ways you believe copyright policy might actually harm artists, rather than protect them?
|
|
U
|
|
You
|
|
copyright is predicated on the idea that remedies will occur through the legal system rather than through social reward/punishment; as society currently stands, the former biases towards entities with access to better lawyers, which are almost always those who are already making a lot of money on their art because it's a nonlinear distribution of success. the latter would allow the art from the most popular artists to have spinoffs more easily (e.g. song remixes, legal public performances, clip shows, etc) that would benefit smaller performers
|
|
AI
|
|
AI Interviewer
|
|
That's a clear articulation of the challenge with the legal system's bias. Could you elaborate on what "social reward/punishment" would look like in practice, and how it would function to incentivize creators and regulate the use of their work without relying on legal remedies?
|
|
U
|
|
You
|
|
something like cc-by-sa -- attribution would be the legal requirement and the real stick would be the social cost that came with not giving someone credit. this is how, for instance, recipes work -- due to essentially the randomness of case law, recipes aren't protected by copyright, so recipe creators are shamed into not ripping off someone else's recipe entirely without credit, and it seems to function well there
|
|
|
|
|
|
You
|
|
I want to explore the topic: copyright policy and its impact on society
|
|
AI
|
|
AI Interviewer
|
|
That's a very broad and important topic. To start, what aspect of copyright policy's impact on society do you find most compelling or problematic, and why?
|
|
U
|
|
You
|
|
let's talk about the ways it actually hurts artists
|
|
AI
|
|
AI Interviewer
|
|
That's an interesting direction. To begin, could you describe one or two specific ways you believe current copyright policy harms artists?
|
|
U
|
|
You
|
|
copyright is predicated on the idea that remedies will occur through the legal system rather than through social reward/punishment; as society currently stands, the former biases towards entities with access to better lawyers, which are almost always those who are already making a lot of money on their art because it's a nonlinear distribution of success. the latter would allow the art from the most popular artists to have spinoffs more easily (e.g. song remixes, legal public performances, clip shows, etc) that would benefit smaller performers
|
|
AI
|
|
AI Interviewer
|
|
You've articulated a clear distinction between legal and social enforcement mechanisms. Could you elaborate on how the current legal system, by favoring those with access to better lawyers, specifically *hinders* the ability of less-resourced artists to protect or leverage their own creative work?
|
|
U
|
|
You
|
|
I mean that's definitionally true isn't it? if they have fewer resources to defend their art, they will not be able to defend it as well
|
|
AI
|
|
AI Interviewer
|
|
That's a fair point about the general principle. Could you give an example of a specific scenario where a less-resourced artist's inability to defend their work, due to legal costs or complexity, directly impacts their career or creative output?
|
|
U
|
|
You
|
|
hm let's talk about how attribution would have more benefits to artists
|
|
AI
|
|
AI Interviewer
|
|
That's an interesting pivot to attribution. Could you elaborate on how increased attribution, perhaps in a system emphasizing social reward, would specifically offer more benefits to artists than the current legal framework?
|
|
U
|
|
You
|
|
because it's more accessible to smaller artists and there are more eyes on the bigger ones so the social costs of ripping off small artists would be higher if we didn't have the legal punishment as a social crutch
|
|
AI
|
|
AI Interviewer
|
|
You're suggesting that the existence of legal punishment might actually *reduce* the social pressure to attribute or avoid infringement. Could you explain how the current legal framework acts as a "social crutch" in this context, effectively diminishing the social costs of appropriation?
|
|
U
|
|
You
|
|
because people view the "way to protect small artists" as "they should do it themselves and sue" so they're less attuned to ripoffs and therefore there aren't as many organized boycotts of ripoffs in music/film whereas that's more common in industries which, due to the randomness of case law, aren't protected by copyright like recipes or fashion
|
|
AI
|
|
AI Interviewer
|
|
You're suggesting that the perceived availability of legal recourse shifts the responsibility for enforcement away from the community and onto the individual artist. How does this shift in perceived responsibility specifically lead to the public being "less attuned to ripoffs" in copyright-protected fields like music and film?
|
|
U
|
|
You
|
|
because they don't view it as their responsibility to boycott/police
|
|
AI
|
|
AI Interviewer
|
|
So, if the public doesn't view it as their responsibility to boycott or police, what *does* influence their perception of responsibility in these areas?
|
|
U
|
|
You
|
|
the copyright system as it currently exists, therefore alleviating them of their social duty to hold artists to an attributive norm
|
|
AI
|
|
AI Interviewer
|
|
You're suggesting that the existence of the copyright system itself, by its very nature, absolves the public of this social duty. Could you elaborate on how the *design* or *operation* of the current copyright system specifically communicates this message to the public, leading them to feel less responsible for enforcing attributive norms?
|
|
U
|
|
You
|
|
well the copyright lobby has spent the last hundred years convincing society (through ad campaigns etc) that copyright is the solution and pirates are the problem, when it's stifling creativity from smaller artists because they're afraid of being sued even if they would eventually win in court because even a lawsuit would be too expensive so they don't do things like remix or clip or whatever
|
|
AI
|
|
AI Interviewer
|
|
You're suggesting that the message from the copyright lobby has framed the issue as "copyright is the solution and pirates are the problem." How does this specific framing, where "pirates" are the primary concern, lead the public to be less attuned to or less willing to act on instances where attribution is lacking, or where established artists might be "ripping off" smaller ones, rather than focusing on "piracy"?
|
|
U
|
|
You
|
|
okay let's wrap this up
|
|
AI
|
|
AI Interviewer
|
|
Thank you for this thoughtful conversation! I believe we've explored your ideas thoroughly.
|