Raw LLM Responses

I want to add a few thoughts to this. For not being a compelling argument, what you are describing was basically the entire point of the creation of copyright: post-1800s intellectual property legislation exists to create a system where artists can get paid enough to do their work reliably, because the underlying idea is that a society where artists get rewarded for making art and can make it full-time is a society we want to have. If AI threatens that, there's no reason copyright should not be adjusted to match. And no, there's no great Maoist artistic "power of the masses" being unlocked here, not any more than commissioning something would. I actually agree that copyright lengths are completely ridiculous, and that actually presents us a pretty elegant solution - copyright should offer deescalating protection over time until a shorter duration than currently. Instead of everything being locked down for 90 years, which would indeed make copyright quite inclement for creating AI, the protection could start from stronger protections than now for say 20 years, where the work can't be used for any purpose including AI, no matter how 'remote', except a few. Then from 20 to 30, some derivative works would become allowed including AI (most the ones currently under fair use, let's say), and from 30 to 40, most types of derivatives that aren't outright copies would be legal. At the 40th year, copyright expires. Also, copyright renewal should just not be a thing if not for strictly technical accidents, it only ever servers corporations who can lobby and pay for it.