3 ms·

The number of works being written for no financial gain and the number of people who have successfully made those models work for them combine to be a tiny frac

The number of works being written for no financial gain and the number of people who have successfully made those models work for them combine to be a tiny fraction of the regular commercial market for books. If you want real data, survey a couple thousand professional authors at random and ask them if they would still write if they knew they had no copyright protection and may have to put together some innovative new release schedule on a per chapter basis just to have any chance of making some money for their work.

jey 15y ago
This is entirely backwards looking; of course the people who benefit from the current system will want to keep it in place. The real question is whether others would step in if everyone who is currently writing books suddenly just quit. In practice the authors wouldn't have to carry all the load for the business model innovation; there would be third parties that figure it out and play a role analogous to the role currently played by publishers, e.g. there could be a company similar to kickstarter dedicated to helping authors fund their projects. We're in early days right now, so the old models still do have a large market share, but we need to be forward-looking and consider the long-run effects.
- earbitscom 15y ago
  No, the real question we should be asking is whether the quality of output will be equivalent or better. Replacing authors who were able to make writing their life with a bunch of part time hobbyists isn't the same.
  - jey 15y ago
    It's a strawman to assume that they'd all be hobbyists. (Also in practice, most writers start off doing it on the side, then become full-time.) However, we should zoom out: I don't claim that what I'm proposing is the correct solution. I'm just pointing out that we should ask these questions and weigh the pros/cons, and not just jump straight into figuring out how to preserve the current system.
- _dps 15y ago
  People certainly get attached to their historical revenues, but let's not forget that businesses like books, movies, and music all have hit-dominated economics under the current model and that this has co-evolved with the kinds of products that are available. Cutting the potential upside of the big hits does disproportionate damage to the overall industry's expected returns. I know you were specifically discussing books where initial production costs are low (in comparison to marketing), but consider what happens to film and television. As you say, under a new regime without copyright as-is, new people may come in to fill the void. However, they may not be real replacements for the old-media dinosaurs. If it becomes impossible to try to make something like "Lost" with any reasonable expectation of a return, then products as complex and expensive as "Lost" simply won't get made. We should be cognizant of this kind of tradeoff as policy evolves. I think the recent story about Louis C.K. points out one possible angle of filling the void; it's comparatively cheap for him to try a stunt like that. Generally, things produced by individuals with relatively little "refinement" (sound, graphics, costumes, marketing, etc.) seem like good candidates for business model innovation. On the other hand, the pilot episode of "Lost" cost millions of dollars just in production (i.e. before they even had any idea if it would be popular and got a marketing budget). If we want a new regime that still allows such projects to be undertaken, Kickstarter-like services and "Please just pay me $5" probably aren't going to cut it (no disrespect to Kickstarter or Louis). I don't know if, in the context of big budget projects, they even represent a meaningful step toward a solution.
  - jey 15y ago
    Sure, maybe huge productions like "Lost" would become comparatively rarer, but is that necessarily bad? More to the point, is it worth the other costs to society to grant these monopolies? I don't claim to have the answers at all, but I'm just pointing out that these questions should be asked. It's important to actually weigh the pros and cons and figure it out rather than assuming that the existing system is definitely the correct one.
    - _dps 15y ago
      Completely agree that the questions should be asked honestly and with an eye on social benefits and costs. I'm no fan of the copyright system as-is precisely because I think those tradeoffs are poorly balanced given modern technology. As for whether it is "bad" to lose capacity to do things like "Lost" I think (for my value system) it's clearly very bad even if 9/10 such projects are not of lasting value. These kinds of mega-projects allow us to push the frontier of what is possible as entertainment and human expression. If you don't particularly like "Lost" for artistic reasons (fair enough ;-), then perhaps substitute anything by Pixar; losing society's ability to make "Wall-E" or "Up" means a duller, less inspiring world. Of course, you could similarly disagree with the artistic merits of Pixar films as being a worthwhile tradeoff. But at some point that line of reasoning just becomes "I'm personally happy with art made on the cheap by a small group and no marketing or distribution costs; I'm ok sacrificing everything else."

jey 15y ago

This is entirely backwards looking; of course the people who benefit from the current system will want to keep it in place. The real question is whether others would step in if everyone who is currently writing books suddenly just quit. In practice the authors wouldn't have to carry all the load for the business model innovation; there would be third parties that figure it out and play a role analogous to the role currently played by publishers, e.g. there could be a company similar to kickstarter dedicated to helping authors fund their projects. We're in early days right now, so the old models still do have a large market share, but we need to be forward-looking and consider the long-run effects.

earbitscom 15y ago
No, the real question we should be asking is whether the quality of output will be equivalent or better. Replacing authors who were able to make writing their life with a bunch of part time hobbyists isn't the same.
- jey 15y ago
  It's a strawman to assume that they'd all be hobbyists. (Also in practice, most writers start off doing it on the side, then become full-time.) However, we should zoom out: I don't claim that what I'm proposing is the correct solution. I'm just pointing out that we should ask these questions and weigh the pros/cons, and not just jump straight into figuring out how to preserve the current system.
_dps 15y ago
People certainly get attached to their historical revenues, but let's not forget that businesses like books, movies, and music all have hit-dominated economics under the current model and that this has co-evolved with the kinds of products that are available. Cutting the potential upside of the big hits does disproportionate damage to the overall industry's expected returns. I know you were specifically discussing books where initial production costs are low (in comparison to marketing), but consider what happens to film and television. As you say, under a new regime without copyright as-is, new people may come in to fill the void. However, they may not be real replacements for the old-media dinosaurs. If it becomes impossible to try to make something like "Lost" with any reasonable expectation of a return, then products as complex and expensive as "Lost" simply won't get made. We should be cognizant of this kind of tradeoff as policy evolves. I think the recent story about Louis C.K. points out one possible angle of filling the void; it's comparatively cheap for him to try a stunt like that. Generally, things produced by individuals with relatively little "refinement" (sound, graphics, costumes, marketing, etc.) seem like good candidates for business model innovation. On the other hand, the pilot episode of "Lost" cost millions of dollars just in production (i.e. before they even had any idea if it would be popular and got a marketing budget). If we want a new regime that still allows such projects to be undertaken, Kickstarter-like services and "Please just pay me $5" probably aren't going to cut it (no disrespect to Kickstarter or Louis). I don't know if, in the context of big budget projects, they even represent a meaningful step toward a solution.
- jey 15y ago
  Sure, maybe huge productions like "Lost" would become comparatively rarer, but is that necessarily bad? More to the point, is it worth the other costs to society to grant these monopolies? I don't claim to have the answers at all, but I'm just pointing out that these questions should be asked. It's important to actually weigh the pros and cons and figure it out rather than assuming that the existing system is definitely the correct one.
  - _dps 15y ago
    Completely agree that the questions should be asked honestly and with an eye on social benefits and costs. I'm no fan of the copyright system as-is precisely because I think those tradeoffs are poorly balanced given modern technology. As for whether it is "bad" to lose capacity to do things like "Lost" I think (for my value system) it's clearly very bad even if 9/10 such projects are not of lasting value. These kinds of mega-projects allow us to push the frontier of what is possible as entertainment and human expression. If you don't particularly like "Lost" for artistic reasons (fair enough ;-), then perhaps substitute anything by Pixar; losing society's ability to make "Wall-E" or "Up" means a duller, less inspiring world. Of course, you could similarly disagree with the artistic merits of Pixar films as being a worthwhile tradeoff. But at some point that line of reasoning just becomes "I'm personally happy with art made on the cheap by a small group and no marketing or distribution costs; I'm ok sacrificing everything else."