Search results

I didn't ask the AI on this one, but i'm in agreement, footnote 4 seems fairly damning to the articles basic premise.

IMO. Democracy isn’t a natural right. Thus no voting is either. But I think this will quickly stray a bit too far into politics so I’m goina leave this tangent there.

Right. The whole point is that establishment of any particular non-perpetual timeframe undermines the natural/moral right theory for copyright laws. If it was a natural/moral right then a timeframe makes no sense.

Protecting the authors does not necessitate the protection is founded on natural/moral rights. This is why every reference of protecting them is coupled with, "it's of great benefit of society to do so."

I didn't. The information in the Statute of Anne 1710 agrees with me on this. AI initially said this, and after reading the Statute of Anne myself, I independently agree. No one mentions theft in these statutes or their reasoning or arguments in support of it. You don't seem to understand...

No, it already did that long before you mentioned it.

It's also a bit ironic that the early history of copyright was to censor works, as established both via my AI search and @Justice and Rule referenced site. Nothing at all to do with moral or legal rights at that time.

Federalist Paper no 43 "To the People of the State of New York: THE FOURTH class comprises the following miscellaneous powers: A power "to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing, for a limited time, to authors and inventors, the exclusive right to their respective...

"Has problems". No not really. I already take everything on the internet with a grain of salt including AI and google search results. I've found not much has really changed in terms of needed carefulness for correct/incorrect information. That said, I'm not writing an academic or legal...

Was surprised because it sounded like it was but from knowing you it would have been something I had thought you'd have disagreed with.

Isn't the point of pointing that out this way to dismiss whatever it says in entirety out of hand? What other purpose does this objection with no additional context serve? Which part? That it's a moral right? Virtually no major philosopher comes close to agreeing with that. That the...

Is this an argument in favor of replying while ignoring all context?

I add it (within at most a few minutes) because I want to say it. Not so that you won't be able to reply to it (not that such would have worked anyways...)

You are so wrong on this I don't even know where to be begin to correct you. Do some basic research. Stop implying bad faith.

So can encyclopedias and also a great many well researched human works still fall into similar territory.

An interesting note: almost all major philosophers do not support the notion that copyright is a moral right. David Hume is particularly interesting: "Justice takes place only with regard to external goods… where the loss of one is the gain of another.”

I think your history here is so far off that until that gets corrected we are never going to reach any semblance of agreement here. Note: I would post the gen-ai summary of the historical context, but i believe that would be against the rules now.

To be explicit: one can view Generative AI as being able to be used as a tool to create art in some contexts, while still believing the tool is unethical for various reasons (energy use, sourcing opyrighted works, etc).

There's nothing inherently in even that statement that implies what you are reading into it.

Not a single person has disputed this. Not one. Here's an explicit example from @Maxperson