dom 17 mai 2026 às 03:44:21 (1779000261), [email protected] enviou: > > (...) > > For the non-code works I’m not so sure of my mind and belief, though, > because of how numerous we want them to be (journalism in particular); > copyright is empowering authors; there I do believe there is “no other > way of funding the development”, as some works could not have been > financed without copyright. >
I believe this to be a limiting belief and a misplacement of the power dynamics surrounding copyright. Taking journalism as an example, I don't think that copyright neither protects nor funds journalists in their activities. It protects and advances media owners interests and make it possible for them to fund their enterprises through advertising and user subscriptions. It also implies that journalists are at the mercy of media owners interests regarding what to publish, how and when. It is no mere coincidence that there is such a huge homogeneity amongst the mass media opinions on highly controversial topics. Journalists could be funded through taxes, be publicly employed and have statutory autonomy in their activities similar to what is the case for judges and politicians. Going a bit farther on what's possible: if basic human rights were to be observed (the right for housing, nutrition, shelter, health, culture, access to clean water, the internet, power sources) instead of being conditioned to purchasing power, that is, if they were effectively rights, not commodities, most of the intellectual activities that nowadays we "fund" through copyright wouldn't need to be directly funded as people would have their needs met and would be free to fearlessly pursue the activities that engage them. They could be prized though contests, could be advanced through crowdfunding, but people would be able to dedicate themselves to these activities without coercing or limiting what other can or cannot do with their productions. > As for the essay: > > > […] > > I doubt either case is how the LLMs’ effect on copyright will be. > Traditional copyright will likely be affirmed and extended. Especially > since fair use is no concept in European copyright, where exceptions for > non-commercial use are the alternative. > There's nothing that makes those necessary consequences, but I think there's wave or a flux that's in motion and that we can steer its power to our advantage and that this would be wiser than trying to counter it with our limited resources. Cheers!
