alt Hacker News> And that's why copyright has exceptions for humans.
Why would the exceptions be only for humans?
"Only human works can get copyright" makes plenty of sense. "Only humans can have fair use" doesn't make sense. Why would we disallow a monkey video having a clip of something as part of the monkey reviewing it? Why would we allow a human to caption something for accessibility but not a computer?
Grammar and idioms should be outside the realm of copyright entirely, not something you get an exception to use anyway.
> It's impossible to satisfy everyone but every person has a concept of fairness (it has been demonstrated even in toddlers). Many people probably even have an internally consistent theory of fairness. We should base laws on those.
A lot of people seem to default to thinking they should get permanent and total control over any idea they have, so I think it's a bad idea to rely on intuition here.
> Why would the exceptions be only for humans?
For starters because you can't own humans. If it's possible to launder copyrighted work through something which can be owned, then rich people get an advantage because they can own more of it.
> so I think it's a bad idea to rely on intuition here
Yep, that's why I said we should only concern ourselves with those which are internally consistent. If people want to apply rules to others which they don't intend to or cannot follow themselves, they lose the right to be taken seriously.