Aside from the fact that the title is a contradiction, I fond the copyright approach annoying:
The legal clarity underpinning these industries is exactly the kind of competitive edge China and other countries cannot easily replicate.
As if creativity requires copyright. You might argue that mass industrial Disney-type creativity requires copyright, but artists who make art don't.
If the U.S. abandons its own standards, we don’t “catch up” to China; we simply validate a global race to the bottom in which American creative capital becomes free raw material for anyone to scrape.
Then the authors claim we need a Fourth Law of Robotics -- referencing with a detailed explanatation, Isaac Asimov's creative work...
That means creators must have real consent and control, licensing frameworks must ensure fair compensation, companies must be transparent about what goes into their models, and the value generated by AI must be shared with those whose works made it possible.
Did the authors of this share any revenue with Asimov? Did Asimov's estate give consent or have control? What about when the authors read Asimov's robot series? What if they didn't read it and are just referencing it because someone told them about it?
Apparently, these people don't just want copyright enforced, they want to put it on steroids:
Copyright doesn’t need to disappear; it needs to work at machine speed. Different tools can be deployed at different layers of the ecosystem: evolving robots.txt to separate the open web from commercial works, building AI licensing marketplaces for instant and scalable licensing, transparency mandates that keep companies honest, and safe harbors for AI companies that license properly. Together, these measures can make reciprocity real without stalling innovation.
I hope people with this mindset ride off into the sunset, but I fear their going to stick their pesky licensing frameworks into everything.
Footnotes