Do you like that you dont own your content any more? Do you like that it gets sold to open AI to make the next ML power draw?
We have the compute power and the networking to decentralize all of it. That means ownership and with that comes personal responsibility. It's not a trivial problem but it's a solvable one today.
> Do you like that you dont own your content any more?
I don't know what you're talking about, I hold a copyright to all of my content, (except the content I produce at work) even if I decide to license a bunch of it.
> Do you like that it gets sold to open AI to make the next ML power draw?
What about the DMCA enabled that?
> We have the compute power and the networking to decentralize all of it. That means ownership and with that comes personal responsibility. It's not a trivial problem but it's a solvable one today.
I think people still want to have conversations using services on the internet. Even email isn't decentralized enough that it would alleviate concerns about third party content. To decentralize enough so that third-party content isn't a legal concern without DMCA, you'd essentially be asking everyone in the world to run federated services with a maximum server size of one user. I don't think we have the technology to make that actually work for the average user.
NO safe harbor means... no reddit, no Facebook, no YouTube... content aggregation in gated monoliths goes away. Data aggregation, data brokering gets a lot harder. And where are you going to mass license content at that point?
> run federated services with a maximum server size of one user.
Family exist, friends exist. Killing the DMCA, then the sea of copyright law suits is a path to copyright reform.
...because the internet was still tiny and wasn't getting any legal attention. The passage of the DMCA was a response to the situation that was going on once it started to get industry attention.
How is this a bad thing? If we leave an exemption for search I would consider this a positive.