There are a lot of programmers on this platform (myself included), and I love that my work has an impact on others.

I have a number of public repos and I have benefitted greatly from other public repos. I hope LLMs made some use of my code.

I wrote blogs for years without any monetization. I hope my ideas influenced someone and would be happy if they made some impact on the reasoning of LLMs.

I'm aware of patent trolls and know people with personal experience with them.

So I generate a lot more content that the typical person and I am still in favor of much looser IP rights as I think they have gone overboard and the net benefit for me, a content creator, is much greater having access to the work of others and being able to use tools like LLMs trained on their work.

Programming, at least, is much easier to shield in a loose IP regime than art. You can ship only binaries, or even keep your code running on a server and disclose only the API. And likely, the company that pays your salary would opt to do just that.

I can't imagine a similar way for an artist to distribute their work while protecting their interests.

posting stuff for free is different than selling stuff.

My personal preference is for (say) 15-20 years.

And, as a content creator, I practice what I preach - at least when it comes to my poetry: https://rikverse2020.rikweb.org.uk/blog/copyrights

Not that it should impact the validity of my argument, but I have sold commercial software in the past, and it is absurd that that software will be copyrighted through most of the 21st-century.

If you make a blog with nice original long form articles it may take much longer to gain traction. Reproducing the content in "your own" wording quickly gets fuzzy.

I like the practical angle. Any formula that requires monitoring what everyone is doing is unworthy of consideration. Appeal to tradition should not apply.

The entitlement of the modern artist/musician is unprecedented. Never have I seen so many people expect to be handed a living because they've posted some "content". Musicians and artists now have global distribution with a plethora of platforms. You have to harness that and then work and grind it out. You have to travel and play gigs and set up a booth at art shows.

There's this new expectation that you should just be able to post some music on Spotify or set up an Etsy shop and get significant passive income. It has never ever worked that way and I feel this new expectation comes from the hustle/influencer types selling it.

Most art is crap and most music isn't worth listening to. In the modern age, it's easy for anyone to be a band or artist and the ability to do this has led to a ton of choice, the market is absolutely flooded. If anyone can do a thing (for very loose values of "do") it's inherently worth less. Only the very best make it and it will always be that way.

Source: made a living as a musician for 20 years. The ones who make it are relentlessly marketing themselves in person. You have to leave the house, be a part of a scene, and be constantly looking for opportunities. No one comes knocking on your door, you must drive your product and make yourself stand out in some way. You make money on merch and gigs, and it's always been that way.

This is all to say that copyright law only affects the top 0.1%. The avg struggling artist will never have to worry about any of this. It's like Bob the mechanic worrying about inheritance taxes. Pipe dream at best.

I mean, this is about as useful as saying anti-slavery people should become slave owners so they understand the hardships of making money.

My example is extreme to the absurd, so how about we go with

>It's difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on not understanding it.