>There is an expression “the dose makes the poison”. With any sufficiently complex or broad category situation, there is rarely a binary ideological position that covers any and all situations. Should drugs be legal for recreation? Well my feeling for marijuana and fentanyl are different. Should individuals be allowed to own weapons? My views differ depending on if it a switch blade knife of a Stinger missile. Can law enforcement surveille possible criminals? My views differ based on whether it is a warranted wiretap or an IMSI catcher used on a group of protestors.
This seems very susceptible to manipulation to get whatever conclusion you want. For instance, is dose defined? It sounds like the idea you're going for is that the typical pirate downloads a few dozen movies/games but AI companies are doing millions/billions, but why should it be counted per infringer? After all, if everyone pirates a given movie, that wouldn't add up much in terms of their personal count of infringements, but would make the movie unprofitable.
>People’s position just might be that the law should be used to protect the rights of parties when there is a large power asymmetry.
That sounds suspiciously close to "laws should just be whatever benefits me or my group". If so, that would be a sad and cynical worldview, not dissimilar to the stance on free speech held by the illiberal left and right. "Free speech is an important part of democracy", they say, except when they see their opponents voicing "dangerous ideas", in which case they think it should be clamped down. After all, what are laws for if not a tool to protect the interests of your side?
>That sounds suspiciously close to "laws should just be whatever benefits me or my group".
I do not understand how you can make that leap. Saying laws should account for the imbalance of power between parties has nothing to do with "my" group. Police have asymmetric power over citizens, so laws should protect citizens from abuses of that power. Employers have asymmetric power over employees, so laws should protect workers from abuses of that power.
>This seems very susceptible to manipulation to get whatever conclusion you want.
Everything is. That is what bad faith arguments are. But in the real world, in a complex society, no simple rule over something as broadly defined as "intellectual property" can work every time in every situation.
This seems very susceptible to manipulation to get whatever conclusion you want. For instance, is dose defined? It sounds like the idea you're going for is that the typical pirate downloads a few dozen movies/games but AI companies are doing millions/billions, but why should it be counted per infringer? After all, if everyone pirates a given movie, that wouldn't add up much in terms of their personal count of infringements, but would make the movie unprofitable.
>People’s position just might be that the law should be used to protect the rights of parties when there is a large power asymmetry.
That sounds suspiciously close to "laws should just be whatever benefits me or my group". If so, that would be a sad and cynical worldview, not dissimilar to the stance on free speech held by the illiberal left and right. "Free speech is an important part of democracy", they say, except when they see their opponents voicing "dangerous ideas", in which case they think it should be clamped down. After all, what are laws for if not a tool to protect the interests of your side?