If I can think this then I'd reckon I'm not alone, the thought must be high on the agenda for MS and like.
The implications are enormous.
Whether or not I'd suggest that if AI makes reverse-engineering easy (and I see no reason why it won't) then users will use it on an individual basis. Detecting the myriads of breaches would be a nightmare for any law/courts system. Ultimately, the paradigm will have to change.
Despite everything I've said here until now I'm not against creators receiving fair recompense for their efforts. What I'm against is the enormous inequity in copyright law which seriously disadvantages consumers. I believe it is not in the best economic or strategic interests of the nation for such inequity to exist—in fact, I reckon it's very damaging.
Solving the copyright problem won't be easy because it has its roots in a much bigger issue—that of social inequity and inequality.
Yes, absolutely. Insiting on business models that depend on scarcity when that scarcity doesn't actually exist is absurd and the costs to society are astronomical.
> Despite everything I've said here until now I'm not against creators receiving fair recompense for their efforts.
No copyright doesn't mean no copensation, it just means that compensation cannot be enforced on a per-copy basis. Creative works, including for-profit creations, have existed long before copyright.
But let's also not pretend that creators receive fair compensation today.
Right, that's why it will get worse. Unfortunately, we're still only in skirmish territory. And it's a battle we have to win.
The copyright/patents issue with China is only part of a much bigger political issue. Gunboat diplomacy isn't the solution, history has shown it's made things worse—China hasn't forgotten the Opium Wars.
Ask the team at The Pirate Bay or Kim Dotcom how that worked out for them.
The US WILL pursue it's copyright laws to any country on earth.
Like for instance, Australia's project Gutenberg tends to get things a few years before the US version because of local legal differences.
Presumably, these items can now flood Western and other markets because they're out of patent and or the original manufacturer has gone bust, not so copyright/IP due to its long expiry date.
You seem to imply that IA simply ignoring copyright and essentially becoming a pirating book service is a good thing?
Things HAVE gotten better by them losing their case.
IA has a lot of very important services, but this was just straight up illegal and harmful to authors.
That's what shadow libraries are doing, as are many other older & less prominent models of information distribution. These projects should be proliferated & promoted to challenge the dominant propaganda that people can only do things the U.S. government says they can.
Which jurisdiction do you have in mind? Russia? China? There are few others that don't have similar copyright laws to the US or won't bend quickly to US demands.
First, the IA should move to a more favorable copyright jurisdiction to preserve the collection.
Second, there's no point fighting the copyright lobby, especially so in the US. We need to build an alternative access to knowledge that bypasses the copyright/ownership of knowledge paradigm.