Medical patents are like 20 years, that should be the upper bound for all copyrights, patents, etc

Maybe for art and only in the case it's individual artists that own it.

And copyrights should be redefined a bit (like foss licences).

But nothing should get you 20 years of exclusive rights, that is just not right.

Ppl will quote medical research, but that is the worst of copyright examples.
And I think medical research should be under public domain, non-profits or gov agencies researching with public money and not allowed to copyright the products.

I personally disagree. If you write a song, why can't I learn it and sing it? If you build a guitar, and I take it, then you can't use it, but if I just learn to sing your song then I'm not depriving you of anything. Why should you be able to prevent me from singing what I want when it doesn't harm you?

The idea that you should get to control your creative works and no one should be allowed to touch them feels to me like it's just appeasing control freaks while costing massive amounts in terms of remixing, and creativity.

While rewarding artists is a good idea, in the digital age, copyright is a fundamentally bad way of doing it. The entire core concept of copyright exists because unlike physical goods, information can be copied and replicated nearly infinitely for zero cost, and when something is ubiquitous, capitalism says that its value is $0. So rather than embrace the fact that information now has effectively zero cost to distribute to everyone once it's digitized, we spent billions on lawyers and laws, and engineers and technological walls, all just to create artificial scarcity so that it would have value again.

There is a fundamental difference between the properties and behaviour of information, and the properties and behaviour of physical matter, and at a core level copyright is a hamfisted way of trying to mash digital information distribution into a system designed for the distribution of physical goods.

Yes, copyrights aren't that dissimilar to monopolies, and it's holding humanity back.

Instead of sharing 'the wealth' and let everyone build on it we keep finding ways to concentrate it.

Yep. Copyright protects stuff like open source software (GPL license and others) and ensures it stays open and creators get credit. This article is making the case for AI to steal all that for itself. Copyright isn't inherently a bad thing, the way it's used and abused is. You can thank Disney for making copyrights seem like a negative thing all because they wanted to hold on to their damn mouse for centuries. They themselves also profited (and still do) off of works they didn't originally create, like Bambi, Cinderella, etc.

Yup. AI firms have $ billions at stake.