Insert huge rant about how copyright's huge term length should be tied to some work to preserve material if they want terms over 20 years here.

Insert my rant pointing out that Intellectual Property is theft of the Commons and AI advancements makes Scarcity based models obsolete.

Intellectual Property does hold material back from the commons, but I would still say it has a period in which it promotes creation if it exist. I just think it
A) restricts things for to long
B) needs an in built fee every 5 years or so to maintain, even if minimal, to ensure people are using it in at least a basic way and not hording rights.
C) needs to ensure the work exist at the end of the copyright to be worth having, hence archive statement.

If those were addressed I still see it providing more creation then relying on AI or not having it would produce.

Know what else promotes creation? Human behavior. We're fucking addicted to it. But that's not really what I'm talking about. The nature of knowledge is a combination of context (our lived experiences) and data (1's and 0s'), all that shit already exists out in the public commons, we merely discover it through our efforts.

Our current model of IP is like saying that only the scientist that discovers a heavenly body has the right to control who looks at it. Now, I'm all on board for people getting credit for their discoveries, like naming rights or something, but the idea that someone discovers something in a space that already belongs to the public meaning that they get to hold it back from the rest of us is bullshit. And in this day and age of CTRL-C CTRL-V it's pretty much gaslighting.

I mean, fuck, look at this Non-Fungible Token crap that's happening. They're basically kickstarting a new faux-scarcity ponzi scheme based on a shared hallucination of value. Most people don't realize it but silicon valley neo-libs have been trying to push this NFT style of data ownership as a means of keeping the bottom from falling out of mining our personal data. They assume, and probably accurately, that if they create a scenario where they can give us the illusion of ownership over our data we'll be willing to exchange it for a pittance thereby undercutting the growing privacy movement.

The nature of new creations draws on context and can be represented by ones and zeros, but I wouldn't say that means its in the public commons already, nor would it meaningly be if you used ai to iterate through all possible combinations. you would still need to pull from that iteration anything of value, which could still be creative work in itself. But ya, a lot of the Non-Fungible Token stuff is absolute nonsense.

Ah, but we are quickly approaching the time when AI can determine what has value. Even moreso as BCI tech unlocks all the things we use to measure human creativity. Whether we like it or not, human thought and behavior is predictable, the only thing holding us back from doing so is having enough biometric data. We're already experimenting with cheap BCIs like muse headbands to create custom music in order to elicit specific emotions. As they become more accurate custom stories to influence thoughts themselves won't be far behind. I say this as someone who's spent a significant amount of time researching memory techniques, AI, and story structures in order to do it for my own curiosity.💁🏼‍♂️