Of course, talking about “the Left” is a very broad brush. So, as an example, I’ll give Jacobin.com . If you search for “copyright”, you will find that they have published a number of wonky articles critical of copyright pre AI-hype, just as one would expect. In recent years the tone changes. In the context of AI, you find an article just regurgitating lines by capital owners. Reporting on the legal troubles of the Internet Archive, the issue gets a both sides treatment.
In contrast, the Internet Archive - or libraries in general, as well as other organizations devoted to free information - have not pivoted to the right. But these are not left-leaning, as such.
How the rise of AI has affected the financial interests of traditional capitalists is obvious. What’s not obvious is why left-leaning spaces support these interests.
What gives?
(I’m sure many will feel that I completely misunderstand this. If you want to CMV you could explain what the endgame is supposed to be. How will it help the general public to grant more privileges to owners of intellectual property?)
I generally agree, but it gets complicated with works that have many contributors, like a film. Does the costume designer own the rights to a movie more than a writer? A director? A stunt coordinator? Who among them gets to decide how that work can be used? A consensus among hundreds of people is very unlikely.
FOSS projects deal with this issue a lot when a project wants to change licensing for example, but they need every contributor’s approval, some of whom may be very difficult to reach.
Also, selling the rights to an IP can be a huge windfall for creators if it gets big enough and they’re okay with giving up control. This is especially common when the original creator wants to retire.
“Intellectual property” is a complicated concept, and I don’t know if a perfect system can exist. Though, it could easily be better for creators than it is now.