You’re going to give me shit for calling out a clear copyright violation because I’m not a judge, and yet you feel comfortable saying that it’s unconstitutional(?!) to stand in their way? What court do you sit on?
You’re going to give me shit for calling out a clear copyright violation because I’m not a judge, and yet you feel comfortable saying that it’s unconstitutional(?!) to stand in their way? What court do you sit on?
A literal, plain-language reading of the Constitution is sufficient. Article I, Section 8, Clause 8: [The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
Copyright doesn't promote the progress of science. Rather the opposite, as it allows journals that contribute nothing to progress to charge the rest of us to access research our taxes paid for.
As for "arts," useful and otherwise, those are secured these days via unbreakable permanent DRM, which overtly violates the constitutional basis of copyright law as a time-limited bargain with the public domain. You should be at least as outraged about that as you are about AI, but evidently you're not.
Meanwhile, you'd have to have rocks in your head to argue that AI doesn't constitute scientific progress at a bare minimum.
Actual judges on actual courts seem to think DRM is fine. So I’m confused. Do you reject laymen interpreting the law and only accept the evaluation of a judge, as indicated by your first comment? Or do you reject what judges say and go with your own “plain reading”? Seems like you’re confused about who’s qualified to say what constitutes lawbreaking.
You do understand who the Constitution was written for, right? It wasn't written primarily for interpretation by judges. Judicial review came along later. It was written for you and me, and for the legislators we elect.
I don't view any decision or legislation that grants unbreakable DRM the force of law as legitimate. A work should benefit from temporary legal protection or permanent technical protection, but not both. My position is that if the founders had meant something other than a "Limited Time," they would have said so. If you disagree, great, but that means we're done here.
Matters such as whether AI training is fair use are better subjects for judicial review, IMO, because there's no plain language to go by. Of course I reserve the right to disagree with that decision, and to subsequently ignore it, in keeping with the spirit of the times. :)
And a billion people in China will respect a copyright-maximalist decision even less than I will.