Today we're looking at if AIs could or should "own" copyright over "their" creations and inventions.
I personally find it hard to justify that AI will be "disincentivized" to create or come up with new drugs, inventions and ideas if "it" is not protected with a monopoly moat on the fruits of "its" labour (that's one area where human nature stands alone in its greed), but maybe you disagree?
I'd like to see artificial scarcity scrapped altogether - I resent using public funds to protect private profits, but again, maybe that's just me.
Should AI be able to "own" copyrights on work developed from ten public domain? (Should AI "owners" be allowed those rights either?)
Is fighting copyright battles in the face of AI imitation - via threat (as in the case of patent law) or incentive (in the case of Grimes "offering" to split resulting profits of AI generated instances of her voice) - even possible? Or is this a losing battle?
Let me know… (all I know, is that many, many lawyers will be lucratively compensated to figure all this out in courts across the globe! - They of course, have already won early battles to keep AI legal representatives out of the court room, showing true foresight in maintaining their own competitive monopoly moats!)
Read more:
Don’t fuck with lawyers : https://www.npr.org/2023/01/25/1151435033/a-robot-was-scheduled-to-argue-in-court-then-came-the-jail-threats
Carrots or sticks (but how to actual enforce either): https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-65385382
No publicly funded monopoly moats for AI inventors : https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-rejects-computer-scientists-lawsuit-over-ai-generated-2023-04-24/
Artificial scarcity officially sucks : https://whatthefuturenow.com/2022/01/10/real-scarcity
Of (competitive) moats and (artifical) men