In our conversations on #AI there is a copyright trap, pushed in the #mainstreaming, the #fashionista conversation around protecting producers and cultural industries are growing hysterical. Some policymakers and activists are pushing for shielding creators from the very real threats posed by these new technologies. However, in their haste to act, leftist and progressive crew are advocating for the use of copyright law as a defensive path. This approach is a mess and fraught with contradictions and risks, a real “Copyright Trap”.

The Copyright Trap is the “common sense” belief that copyright law can be used as a tool to support and protect producers of our culture. This path is problematic:

• Feudal Nature of Copyright: Copyright, along with patents and trademarks, is a form of intellectual property that comes from feudal rights. It grants semi-eternal rents to those who did not contribute to the production of the work, much like the way land was historically controlled by a few powerful lords.
• Restriction of the Commons: Copyright takes works out of the public domain and locks them into walled gardens, thus restricting the commons. These runs counter to the principles of #4opens access and communal sharing that activists and progressives champion.
• Injustice to Future Creators: By extending and expanding copyright protections, we make it harder for future producers to build upon the shoulders of giants. This stifles creativity, trapping future generations in a cycle of restricted access and limited freedom.

The mess underpin the current debates around AI and copyright:

• “If Value, Then (Property) Right” Fallacy: This is the ideological belief that if something has value, it must be protected as property. This ignores the complex ways in which value is created and shared, particularly through communal and collaborative efforts, that do not fit into property rights dogma.
• Unauthorized Copying as Inherently Wrongful: The idea that copying is wrong ignores the realities of how culture and knowledge developed through imitation, adaptation, and remixing. This perspective is particularly ill-suited to the #openweb era, where information is shared and transformed.
• The Starving Artist Trope: This trope is resurrected to justify the expansion of copyright protections, suggesting that without such protections, artists will starve. This story fails to address the systemic issues that actually lead to the impoverishment of producers, such as inequitable distribution of wealth and the monopolistic practices in the #dotcons.

Using copyright as a weapon against AI companies is counterproductive and hypocritical for those who advocate for the rights of authors, creators, and intellectual workers:

• Counter to Progressive Values: Copyright as it stands is a tool of capital that entrenches inequality and restricts access to knowledge and culture. Using it to protect producers from #AI companies simply reinforces a system that many leftists and progressives have long criticized.
• Locking Up the Commons: Stronger copyright protections, risk enclosing the cultural commons, making it difficult for producers to share content freely to be built upon.
• Hindering change and challenge: Stricter copyright laws stifle social activism, as new producers find it harder to access and build on existing works. This is detrimental in an era where collaborative and iterative creation is key to technological and cultural progress.

Alternative Approaches, to effectively address the risks and harms posed by generative AI, we need to move past the “copyright trap” and look towards more appropriate “native” paths:

• Promote #4opens Open Access and Open Source: Encourage the use of open access and open source licenses and traditions that allow for the free sharing and modification of works. This helps knowledge and culture remain accessible for social use.
• Equitable Funding Models: Develop new models for supporting creators that do not rely on restrictive copyright laws. This could include systems of public funding, grants, and cooperative ownership that ensure people are fairly compensated for their work without repressively restricting access.
• Regulation of #AI Companies: Rather than using copyright as a blunt instrument, on the vertical path, we can regulate AI companies directly. This includes measures to ensure transparency, accountability, and fair compensation for the use of creative works.

The call to use copyright law to protect producers from the threats of #AI is not a useful path for leftist and progressive movements. Instead of reinforcing a flawed and restrictive system, we need to seek “native” #4opens paths that align with our values. By doing so, we build a future where both humane creativity and resulting technology can thrive in balance, and not just #techchun the current mess.