This is full of so many inaccuracies.
> Copyright is a fairly ancient concept
The idea is fairly old, but it's current implementation in law is not nearly that old.
> that benefits normal people as much as it benefits big corporations
Clearly false if you measure that benefit in monetary terms.
>
Copyright is usually interpreted fairly narrowly, and doesn't prevent you from creating inspired works, or retelling the same story in your own words.
Absolutely false. You can absolutely be stopped from retelling copyrighted fictional stories. You can even be stopped from telling new stories with derivative characters or settings.
> Generative AI is a problem largely because it destroys these revenue streams for millions of people.
How? The restrictions on selling images of Mickey Mouse exist regarless of if they were created with or without AI assistance.
> But if we end up with a framework that maintains financial incentives to artistic expression, it's probably a good thing.
We already have that framework and arguably it is already far more restrictive than it needs to be to maintain incentives for artistic creation. Indeed, these rules now often limit new artistic expression or prevent artists from monetizing their creations.
The types of art that are helped the most today by the copyright laws of tosay are the kinds that require large budgets to produce. The types of art that are most hurt are those produced by fans who want to build new things upon the narratives in our shared culture.
We need to shorten copyright durations and expand fair use protections and monetization options for derivative works. We don't need to make copyright even more powerful than it already is.
Edit: If you disagree, I'd be curious to hear your answer to this question. A character like Harry Potter is so widely known that it is now a ubiquitous part of our culture. To incentive new novels, what is the minimum duration we need to give J K Rowling control of who is allowed to write stories about this cultural touchstone?
