5 ms·

>Without copyright, most software probably wouldn't be written, most books wouldn't be written, most movies wouldn't be made, most music wouldn't be made, etc.

>Without copyright, most software probably wouldn't be written, most books wouldn't be written, most movies wouldn't be made, most music wouldn't be made, etc. Copyright didn't exist forever, yet we have music and books from before then. Shakespeare was before copyright. Most of the best creatives create for the joy of creation, not for money. Like open source.

Tepix 6y ago
To be fair, when digital copies arrived at essentially zero cost, it was a huge paradigm shift.
mkl 6y ago
I used the word "most" for a reason. Not "all". Shakespeare made a living from the performances of his plays, not the written documents. Musicians made money from performances too. Most famous historical painters and composers had wealthy benefactors that enabled their work. Creative people obviously enjoy creating, but professionals are doing it to earn a living. Look at the books on your bookshelf and the movies and TV shows you watch. How many were made purely for joy with no expectation of making money? Maybe some, but not most.
- ryanbrunner 6y ago
  I think in a world without copyright, the ways that creative people earn a living would certainly change, but I'm not sure it would mean it would be impossible to be successful doing those things. Musicians already earn a large portion of their income from things other than sales of their albums - whether it's touring / merch / advertising deals. All of that could exist in a world without copyright. The equivalent might not exist yet for movies, but in a world where movies were freely distributable, someone would find a way to still make it a business. Maybe the giant blockbusters would go away, but maybe that's an acceptable price to pay.
  - SyzygistSix 6y ago
    The argument about musicians rings a bit hollow, as most musicians nowadays make their living as performers and shopkeeps, which I do not think is good for the state of the art at all.
- JetSpiegel 6y ago
  > Shakespeare made a living from the performances of his plays, not the written documents. But if there was no copyright, why did the Globe owners pay him at all? Just perform the old plays for free! He was payed for creating something new, copyright was worthless because we did not live off selling old works. Copyright couldn't help Shakespeare to create more or better plays anyway, he was limited by how much boot-licking the Queen was acceptable to the audience, and how many "obscene" stuff he could sneak in without angering the Queen or the Church.
meepmorp 6y ago
Shakespeare was a businessman - he wrote plays for money. The Globe didn't run on the love of creation. Bach's work was entirely possible because he got hired by a rich guy who funded his creative output. You'd never have heard of him if he had to support all of the little Bachs on whatever coins he could get busking. And so on.
- ryanbrunner 6y ago
  That just bolsters the point you're replying to. If Shakespeare was doing it strictly for artistic merit, and money didn't enter into it, that's an argument for copyright - since presumably there's far fewer people who are willing / able to pursue creative projects strictly for the artistic merit without any regard for income. The fact that he was a businessman demonstrates that copyright isn't completely necessary to make creative works a viable business.
  - meepmorp 6y ago
    The fact that nobody currently follows Shakespeare’s business model indicates that it’s not viable any more.
    - burntoutfire 6y ago
      There are plenty of people who live off writing screenplays for movies and TV.
      - meepmorp 6y ago
        Plenty of those people depend on copyright law to prevent studios from stealing their scripts and producing them without paying the writer. Or are we supposed to against independent creators, and insist that artists return to the patronage system so we can eliminate copyright?
        JetSpiegel 6y ago
        > Plenty of those people depend on copyright law to prevent studios from stealing their scripts and producing them without paying the writer. Like that never happens now. How many independent creators did successfully sue a studio since copyright law has come into play? How many pitched a script to a studio, only to be rejected, and having the same idea rewritten on a spec by others? Is it worth it to keep Steamboat Willie under lock and key? Might as well tax the IP secondary sales and just give every living author with works registered in the Library of Congress a stipend.

Tepix 6y ago

To be fair, when digital copies arrived at essentially zero cost, it was a huge paradigm shift.

mkl 6y ago

I used the word "most" for a reason. Not "all". Shakespeare made a living from the performances of his plays, not the written documents. Musicians made money from performances too. Most famous historical painters and composers had wealthy benefactors that enabled their work. Creative people obviously enjoy creating, but professionals are doing it to earn a living. Look at the books on your bookshelf and the movies and TV shows you watch. How many were made purely for joy with no expectation of making money? Maybe some, but not most.

ryanbrunner 6y ago
I think in a world without copyright, the ways that creative people earn a living would certainly change, but I'm not sure it would mean it would be impossible to be successful doing those things. Musicians already earn a large portion of their income from things other than sales of their albums - whether it's touring / merch / advertising deals. All of that could exist in a world without copyright. The equivalent might not exist yet for movies, but in a world where movies were freely distributable, someone would find a way to still make it a business. Maybe the giant blockbusters would go away, but maybe that's an acceptable price to pay.
- SyzygistSix 6y ago
  The argument about musicians rings a bit hollow, as most musicians nowadays make their living as performers and shopkeeps, which I do not think is good for the state of the art at all.
JetSpiegel 6y ago
> Shakespeare made a living from the performances of his plays, not the written documents. But if there was no copyright, why did the Globe owners pay him at all? Just perform the old plays for free! He was payed for creating something new, copyright was worthless because we did not live off selling old works. Copyright couldn't help Shakespeare to create more or better plays anyway, he was limited by how much boot-licking the Queen was acceptable to the audience, and how many "obscene" stuff he could sneak in without angering the Queen or the Church.

meepmorp 6y ago

Shakespeare was a businessman - he wrote plays for money. The Globe didn't run on the love of creation. Bach's work was entirely possible because he got hired by a rich guy who funded his creative output. You'd never have heard of him if he had to support all of the little Bachs on whatever coins he could get busking. And so on.

ryanbrunner 6y ago
That just bolsters the point you're replying to. If Shakespeare was doing it strictly for artistic merit, and money didn't enter into it, that's an argument for copyright - since presumably there's far fewer people who are willing / able to pursue creative projects strictly for the artistic merit without any regard for income. The fact that he was a businessman demonstrates that copyright isn't completely necessary to make creative works a viable business.
- meepmorp 6y ago
  The fact that nobody currently follows Shakespeare’s business model indicates that it’s not viable any more.
  - burntoutfire 6y ago
    There are plenty of people who live off writing screenplays for movies and TV.
    - meepmorp 6y ago
      Plenty of those people depend on copyright law to prevent studios from stealing their scripts and producing them without paying the writer. Or are we supposed to against independent creators, and insist that artists return to the patronage system so we can eliminate copyright?
      - JetSpiegel 6y ago
        > Plenty of those people depend on copyright law to prevent studios from stealing their scripts and producing them without paying the writer. Like that never happens now. How many independent creators did successfully sue a studio since copyright law has come into play? How many pitched a script to a studio, only to be rejected, and having the same idea rewritten on a spec by others? Is it worth it to keep Steamboat Willie under lock and key? Might as well tax the IP secondary sales and just give every living author with works registered in the Library of Congress a stipend.