alt Hacker News> valued at $300 billion
Irrelevant really. Invoking this in the argument shows the basis is jealousy. They are clearly valued as such not because they collected all the data and stored in some database. Your local library is not worth 300 billion.
> For the majority of interesting output people have paid for art, music, software, journalism
Absolutely and demonstrably false. Music and art predate Copyright by hundreds if not thousands of years.
> But you know that already and are justifying the industry that pays your bills.
Huh, ad hominem much? I find it rich that the whole premise of your argument was some "art, music, software, journalist" was entitled to some payment, but suddenly it is a problem when "my industry" (somehow you assume I work in AI) is getting paid?
Replies
Copyright is not the same as paying for it
Copyright was only necessary with mass reproduction. The Gutenberg Bible does not yet qualify. The Berne Convention started in 1886, where the problem became more pressing.
And as I said, art was always paid for. In the case of monarchies, at least their advisers usually had good taste, unlike rich people today.