Raw LLM Responses

I’m glad to hear that AI companies might be prevented from taking people’s work without permission to build their own product. But I don’t think you’re right regarding your perspective on copyright law and the role it serves. Large corporations absolutely love copyright law, they are literally the biggest defenders of it. They actively start court cases to extend and expand copyright protections. You position copyright as something that protects the livelihoods of artists, that ensures we don’t live in a world where large corporations monopolize all creative products and exploit their visibility to drown out any independently made art, but… we already do. We already live in that reality. The vast majority of creatives work under large corporations because the advertising they’re capable of is what makes their output successful, while contributing to independent artists being drowned out. That makes giving your work to a large corporation the only financially viable option for a lot of artists. You said yourself the average author lives below the poverty line. Another interesting thing, even though we do have copyright law, there have been almost no successful court cases where a writer accuses someone else of plagiarizing their work. You need an obscene amount of money to go to court at all! Something independent creatives can’t afford. The system is completely stacked in the favour of the rich, not artists. You can protect your IP if you’re rich, not if you’re not. Almost all pf the problems you site in this hypothetical world already exist in the current one in some form. The only big difference is that corporations would directly copy the works of small writers and artists, but I honestly don’t think it would play out the way you’re imagining. There would probably be some petty examples of that with small scale business, but large media conglomerates already have billions of dollars, they can do Literally Anything They Want Already, the products that they are putting out now are exactly the products they want to be putting out. It’s easy to forget, but big companies don’t care about the quality of their work, or about making good art, they don’t give a shit if their show or movie or whatever is awful as long as it makes loads of money, so in a world where they could copy things directly from independent artists, I don’t think they would, because they don’t give a shit that your art is better! It doesn’t matter if it’s more personal or soulful or meaningful, only if it has potential to be a hit media franchise or whatever, and when small creators do make a recognizable IP on their own, big companies buy licenses or the IP rights to them anyway! I suppose if you managed to get really big as a small team of creatives, and then a company copied your hit web show or what have you, that would super suck, but that’s an incredibly small group of people. For the average creative, for all the people watching this, copyright law does nothing for them. Meanwhile there might actually be some benefits to independent creators if copyright law wasn’t so much a thing, namely they’d be free to create and sell their own versions of popular characters, potentially profiting off the brands that those big corporations payed to build. (Also to be clear I’m not advocating for the ability to literally just copy a picture or novel word for word and then resell it, I’m more talking about IP type law, about laws that ban people from selling art on the basis that it features elements from a copyrighted IP) I don’t claim to be an expert on this or anything, all I know is that I’ve heard a lot of creatives argue against copyright law, on the basis that it is a tool of capital, that it exists to benefit rich corporations, not artists, and only serves to stratify the class divide between wealthy media CEOs and independent creatives, by turning fictional characters and such into private property. And I’m inclined to think they’re right, because if having copyright law was really beneficial for us, if it was really stopping corporations from exploiting us, then why are corporations the ones who most want to enforce it? If they could make more money by eliminating copyright, they would be trying to do that. But they know that’s not true, they know it’s to their benefit to reinforce it. And anything that’s good for billion dollar corporations is basically always bad for us