3 ms·

I'm confused by this argument. Copyright exists in order that creative works are sold for more than their marginal cost of reproduction, and the profits from t

I'm confused by this argument. Copyright exists in order that creative works are sold for more than their marginal cost of reproduction, and the profits from that are directed towards the author. Having the exclusive right to produce the copies, copyright, enabled creativity to be rewarded. Making distribution cheaper and easier makes copyright perhaps make more sense, not less, but didn't change the underlying logic of trying needing to sell creative works for more than their marginal reproduction cost, even if you figure that cost is zero. Except for scientific publishing. Burn that all down. Because the authors aren't getting any money (and actually want distribution, not payment) so copyright of scientific works isn't achieving anything positive for society at all.

hakfoo 3y ago
The underlying conceit is that a marketplace-oriented model is the only, or even the right, way to encourage creative work. A significant amount of the spend on creative works goes to overhead pretty much only enabled by copyright. No copyright means a massive reduction in legal and accounting complexity. I'd suspect copyright also tends to encourage a "short tail" of highly successful works. We only have one official source for Oppenheimer or Stairway to Heaven, rather than thousands of tweaked and extended versions sharing the same market. Relying on market forces to bankroll creativity also optimizes for a weird niche-- familiar enough to be easily saleable, but distinct enough to avoid legal hassle. Does it incentivize pushing the envelope? We could take the $28 bazillion a year we spend on content as a society, pipe it into endowments and grants, and increase the number of professional creatives. Yes, this might have to be administered as a tax-and-spend by the state, but it's certainly an alternative to consider.

hakfoo 3y ago

The underlying conceit is that a marketplace-oriented model is the only, or even the right, way to encourage creative work. A significant amount of the spend on creative works goes to overhead pretty much only enabled by copyright. No copyright means a massive reduction in legal and accounting complexity. I'd suspect copyright also tends to encourage a "short tail" of highly successful works. We only have one official source for Oppenheimer or Stairway to Heaven, rather than thousands of tweaked and extended versions sharing the same market. Relying on market forces to bankroll creativity also optimizes for a weird niche-- familiar enough to be easily saleable, but distinct enough to avoid legal hassle. Does it incentivize pushing the envelope? We could take the $28 bazillion a year we spend on content as a society, pipe it into endowments and grants, and increase the number of professional creatives. Yes, this might have to be administered as a tax-and-spend by the state, but it's certainly an alternative to consider.