EFF files twice

What's this about?

Two EFF positions the same day: courts should not rewrite copyright law in response to AI hype, and Governor Newsom should veto California's AB 1709.

What is EFF's copyright argument?

That courts are being asked to decide in advance which tools do and do not foster human creativity, and should be reluctant to do so given how much experimentation is underway. The constitutional purpose of copyright in the US is to promote the progress of science and useful arts by granting creators temporary exclusive rights — not, as the thread establishes at length, to compensate for production costs or to protect the business plans of publishers. That distinction determines what a court is even allowed to weigh.

What's the community saying?

1. Broad agreement with the "courts should be reluctant to decide in advance" framing.
2. A genuine disagreement about first principles: if production costs fall, should protection fall too? The answer that holds is that copyright's purpose is not compensation for cost.
3. A well-sourced correction of the whole premise, quoting the constitutional language directly.
4. A sub-argument about whether the cost of producing *good* things has fallen at all, between two programmers with opposite direct experience.