It is an interesting take and it reminds of the thoughts that made crypto what it is today, which made something the lines of:
"Old systems suck and our new system is great and it is new technology. Therefore old rules do not apply to it."
Not surprisingly, the moment crypto started gaining traction, everyone was quickly made to understand that rules do indeed apply even if it is a new a facet of finance regulations ( or in the case of Copilot copyright law ).
For the record, I am sympathetic to your sentiment, but you can't really expect existing interests to accept a major change if it happens to undermine someone's way of life and, possibly, alter the current legal landscape. And this may end up a much bigger change than expected and may finally usher in the era management always wanted.
I'm not sure if I expressed myself well: I'm not making the argument that we should just accept a future where AI has free rein. Quite the contrary: I would argue we should examine how to preserve the spirit of the precedent - which is to protect creators - which may require us to create new laws.
"Old systems suck and our new system is great and it is new technology. Therefore old rules do not apply to it."
Not surprisingly, the moment crypto started gaining traction, everyone was quickly made to understand that rules do indeed apply even if it is a new a facet of finance regulations ( or in the case of Copilot copyright law ).
For the record, I am sympathetic to your sentiment, but you can't really expect existing interests to accept a major change if it happens to undermine someone's way of life and, possibly, alter the current legal landscape. And this may end up a much bigger change than expected and may finally usher in the era management always wanted.