42 ms·

Copyright just introduces artificial and undesirable scarcity, and I doubt that it really supports many authors. This piece says that mean writing incomes are o

Copyright just introduces artificial and undesirable scarcity, and I doubt that it really supports many authors. This piece says that mean writing incomes are only $20,300 a year, and I wouldn't be surprised if a large proportion goes to a few of the most popular authors and many get little or nothing. Scrap copyright and find other ways to support creators. I'd suggest funding from government for a decent number of writing scholarships with input from various sources (including the general public if feasible) on which writers to support. This could be started without scrapping copyright initially, simply require that all output from the scholarships be released under Creative Commons Zero.

incompatible 7y ago
This isn't particularly radical, arts and science already receive quite a bit of government funding in many countries. I suggest doing more of it and expanding it to new areas, and adding the CC0 requirement. I doubt that it would cost much compared to the amounts governments are throwing around these days to support people, and at least some creative output would come from it.
- smichel17 7y ago
  CC-BY and CC-BY-SA are also both fine licenses for this type of work.
- dash2 7y ago
  The idea that artists should be first forbidden from selling the work they create, and then supported by the state, is totalitarian. Analogy: would you make all code compulsorily open-source? (I know some people will answer yes: in my view, they're nuts.)
  - gvjddbnvdrbv 7y ago
    I think OP was suggesting that authors should have a choice. Either take a government grant in which case output is open source or don't.
    - incompatible 7y ago
      Yeah, well I'd prefer to see copyright abolished. It's totalitarian to try to control what data people can share and store on their devices. But as a first step, we can start finding alternative methods of funding the creation of information. I'm not a supporter of Soviet-style bureaucratic command-and-control socialism, everything should be voluntary. I suppose you could complain that funding creators by taxation (or government debt, more likely these days) is involuntary. True, but I just see it as a way of paying for civilization. In total, the cost may be similar to what people are currently paying in copyright licenses, but with the benefit that all works would now be available to all.
  - praptak 7y ago
    They should not be forbidden from selling their work, they should be forbidden from making the state restrict what people share.

incompatible 7y ago

This isn't particularly radical, arts and science already receive quite a bit of government funding in many countries. I suggest doing more of it and expanding it to new areas, and adding the CC0 requirement. I doubt that it would cost much compared to the amounts governments are throwing around these days to support people, and at least some creative output would come from it.

smichel17 7y ago
CC-BY and CC-BY-SA are also both fine licenses for this type of work.
dash2 7y ago
The idea that artists should be first forbidden from selling the work they create, and then supported by the state, is totalitarian. Analogy: would you make all code compulsorily open-source? (I know some people will answer yes: in my view, they're nuts.)
- gvjddbnvdrbv 7y ago
  I think OP was suggesting that authors should have a choice. Either take a government grant in which case output is open source or don't.
  - incompatible 7y ago
    Yeah, well I'd prefer to see copyright abolished. It's totalitarian to try to control what data people can share and store on their devices. But as a first step, we can start finding alternative methods of funding the creation of information. I'm not a supporter of Soviet-style bureaucratic command-and-control socialism, everything should be voluntary. I suppose you could complain that funding creators by taxation (or government debt, more likely these days) is involuntary. True, but I just see it as a way of paying for civilization. In total, the cost may be similar to what people are currently paying in copyright licenses, but with the benefit that all works would now be available to all.
- praptak 7y ago
  They should not be forbidden from selling their work, they should be forbidden from making the state restrict what people share.