Public domain / communal property is also part of copyright, so it's not as if this is some forgotten concept that needs to be restored to the discourse.
Georgism is underconsidered, though.
> By focusing solely on the legal implications and ignoring the historical context of cultural storytelling
The legal implications are human implications and as much a part of culture as anything else. They have to do with what's fair and how rewards for effort are recognized and distributed. Formalizing this is less important in cultures that aren't oriented around market economies, which seems to be what much of this "rich tapestry of folklore" discourse wants to evoke and have us hearken back to, but that doesn't describe any society that's figuring out how to handle AI.
> we might actually limit the tools of cultural expression to comply with some weird outdated copyright thing is just...bonkers.
What's bonkers is the life in the literally backwards idea copyright is (or should be) mooted or outdated by novel reproduction capabilities.
Copyright became compelling because of novel reproduction capabilities.
The specific capabilities at the time were industrialized printing. People apparently much smarter than the typical software professional realized that meant some badly aligned incentives between (a) those holding these new reproduction capabilities and (b) those who created the works on which the value of those new reproduction capabilities relied. The heart of the copyright bargain is in aligning those incentives.
Specific novel reproduction techniques can change the details of what's prohibited or restricted or remitted and how and on what basis and powers/limits of enforcement, etc etc. But the they don't change the wisdom in the bargain. The only thing that would change that is a better way of organizing and rewarding the productive capacity of society.
The incentives remain poorly aligned though. Otherwise the people who actually author the copyrighted works (actors, special effects artists, etc) wouldn't have had to go on strike for so long to get proper compensation.
The value still remains with the people who own the reproduction capabilities, and only scraps go to the artists. Artists can get scraps without selling copyright too, just look at patreon
What you're mentioning here is basically about other advantages that accrue to capital vs labor, not copyright. Hence the fact strikes happen across the boundaries of where copyright matters -- auto manufacturing work doesn't have anything to do with copyright (acting doesn't really yet either), yet there are strikes for comp and other job benefits.
In situations where scraps go to artists, it's because they don't have the capital to invest creating/distributing their work, so as part of their contract or employment agreement, they sell the copyright to the work. This isn't copyright's fault: this situation would exist without any copyright at all (though it would likely be worse). And it is not universal. There are people who do create the work on their own time/dime, and copyright gives them immense leverage when it comes time to distribute & sell the work.
Patronage is another leg on the stool that can support a creator's career, but it's no replacement for copyright -- it leaves the creator with all the same problems and none of the benefits. You either end up with similar problems with relationship with capital (a few wealthy patrons who want to invest in you) or you end up having to build your wide audience and hope that as you do some of those convert even though there's no obligation and the culture increasingly normalizes the perception that free access to the fruits of other people's creative labor is how things should be.
And in a career as tenuous as creative work, knocking out the copyright leg from the stool is going to make the balancing act harder.
Public domain / communal property is also part of copyright, so it's not as if this is some forgotten concept that needs to be restored to the discourse.
Georgism is underconsidered, though.
> By focusing solely on the legal implications and ignoring the historical context of cultural storytelling
The legal implications are human implications and as much a part of culture as anything else. They have to do with what's fair and how rewards for effort are recognized and distributed. Formalizing this is less important in cultures that aren't oriented around market economies, which seems to be what much of this "rich tapestry of folklore" discourse wants to evoke and have us hearken back to, but that doesn't describe any society that's figuring out how to handle AI.
> we might actually limit the tools of cultural expression to comply with some weird outdated copyright thing is just...bonkers.
What's bonkers is the life in the literally backwards idea copyright is (or should be) mooted or outdated by novel reproduction capabilities.
Copyright became compelling because of novel reproduction capabilities.
The specific capabilities at the time were industrialized printing. People apparently much smarter than the typical software professional realized that meant some badly aligned incentives between (a) those holding these new reproduction capabilities and (b) those who created the works on which the value of those new reproduction capabilities relied. The heart of the copyright bargain is in aligning those incentives.
Specific novel reproduction techniques can change the details of what's prohibited or restricted or remitted and how and on what basis and powers/limits of enforcement, etc etc. But the they don't change the wisdom in the bargain. The only thing that would change that is a better way of organizing and rewarding the productive capacity of society.