And to you. My thoughts on the matter have not especially changed, except that I would add that very few people in AI discussion circles seem to appreciate (or care?) that copyright law questions are at the heart of future control over artificial intelligence. The political outcome, after all the judges and legislators have had their crack at it, of cases like NYT v. OpenAI should tell us a lot about who is going to have the power to siphon value from whom. This could potentially have been solved 25 years ago--alas.
I think a lot of people in AI circles cynically assume that copyright law questions will ultimately turn on how much legislators like and use AI. So focus on AI capabilities without worrying about copyright law questions is the correct move.
I wonder if Disney's own power in that regard has waned as of late. I think there was a potential copyright expansion some time ago and it never came to fruition, almost as if Disney...just didn't care?
I wonder if Disney's own power in that regard has waned as of late.
It clearly has. People half-joked for ages about Disney lobbying for yet another Mickey Mouse copyright extension - a joke which, in itself, made the thing less likely. But as Mickey started to hit the public domain, not only was the public watching out for that kind of legislative abuse - Disney was itself in a precarious position, more entangled with the culture war than ever before. They no longer have many friends in high places, relative to how it once was; the Republicans hate the gays and the Democrats hate Americana.
I guess it makes sense, the De Santis vs. Disney episode of the Culture War had the right looking at copyright terms, and that probably made Disney flinch when it came to Steamboat Willy.
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
And to you. My thoughts on the matter have not especially changed, except that I would add that very few people in AI discussion circles seem to appreciate (or care?) that copyright law questions are at the heart of future control over artificial intelligence. The political outcome, after all the judges and legislators have had their crack at it, of cases like NYT v. OpenAI should tell us a lot about who is going to have the power to siphon value from whom. This could potentially have been solved 25 years ago--alas.
I think a lot of people in AI circles cynically assume that copyright law questions will ultimately turn on how much legislators like and use AI. So focus on AI capabilities without worrying about copyright law questions is the correct move.
That makes sense. It looked like previous copyright questions turned on how much power Disney could amass with which to buy politicians.
I wonder if Disney's own power in that regard has waned as of late. I think there was a potential copyright expansion some time ago and it never came to fruition, almost as if Disney...just didn't care?
It clearly has. People half-joked for ages about Disney lobbying for yet another Mickey Mouse copyright extension - a joke which, in itself, made the thing less likely. But as Mickey started to hit the public domain, not only was the public watching out for that kind of legislative abuse - Disney was itself in a precarious position, more entangled with the culture war than ever before. They no longer have many friends in high places, relative to how it once was; the Republicans hate the gays and the Democrats hate Americana.
I guess it makes sense, the De Santis vs. Disney episode of the Culture War had the right looking at copyright terms, and that probably made Disney flinch when it came to Steamboat Willy.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link