5 ms·

The economic context of copyright, in particular the current system of compensation based on royalties, is bad because it creates an unrealistic multiplier effe

The economic context of copyright, in particular the current system of compensation based on royalties, is bad because it creates an unrealistic multiplier effect. The classic example: for every loaf of bread a baker bakes, the variable costs (raw ingredients, fuel, labour) are approximately the same for each extra loaf baked, so his margin and profit per loaf don't magically increase by baking more. Contrast this with someone creating a copyrighted work and receiving royalties per instance sold or performed. Here, increased volume does increase margin and profit per instance, because the real cost of labour the creator must put in to receive royalties on every new sale or performance tends to zero. (I'm discounting the cost of marketing etc., which in most cases has only a second-order effect and doesn't change the final result.) Add to this the income which copyright brokers receive from media distributors etc. without having any part in the creative process, and things become very unbalanced real quick. The root cause of the problem is that it is extremely hard to put a realistic monetary value on the act of creating a copyrighted work, as it would have to take into account the real effort required to create it, as well as the total (mainly intangible) benefit to all who will ever get exposed to it. It would be much better if the artist could make dealings directly with the audience, just like the baker does with his customers. As Syd Barrett put it: "All middle men are bad."

anigbrowl 11y ago
because the real cost of labour the creator must put in to receive royalties on every new sale or performance tends to zero. Of course, but you have much higher up front costs than the baker, who can bake less during periods of slack demand. You can't paint half of a picture and sell it for half the price you wanted to get. I'm not sure why you think a commodity model is even relevant here. An artistic work has a lot more in common with the erection of a building, which involves large amounts of labor and capital up front, in exchange for an ongoing stream of economic rents over the longer term. (I'm discounting the cost of marketing etc., which in most cases has only a second-order effect and doesn't change the final result.) A very dubious assumption. Marketing matters quite a lot IMHO, and certainly as far as films go there's a pretty strong correlation between the marketing budget and the probability of making a financial return. You micht like to check out the reference sources in this article, particularly Vogel: https://storyality.wordpress.com/2012/12/17/storyality-24-on-feature-films-and-roi-return-on-investment/ https://storyality.wordpress.com/2012/12/17/storyality-24-on... Add to this the income which copyright brokers receive from media distributors etc. without having any part in the creative process, and things become very unbalanced real quick. But it's not just creative, it's administrative as well. If you're a writer you don't want to spend half your time trying to audit your distributors. It would be much better if the artist could make dealings directly with the audience That's not realistic in the case of literary works, because you're still up against the copying problem - the text of a book is very easy to copy and it is the product itself. As Syd Barrett put it: "All middle men are bad." Much as I admire Syd Barrett artistically, have you considered that he was a) literally incompetent in the mental health sense, and b) that his economic wellbeing was to a large extent dependent on the good will of his former bandmates who ensured that he received royalty monies from record sales? Without their efforts as middlemen he'd probably have ended up institutionalized or homeless. There's a romantic viewpoint that middlemen in the arts world are all parasitic. They're not; usually the relationship is much more symbiotic, with different parties bringing different skills to the table. So people in Hollywood may grumble about agents in a general sense, but nobody who has one is in a hurry to go back to repping themselves unless they get so rich and famous as to set up their own production company, in which case they hire people to do a lot of the same work.

anigbrowl 11y ago

because the real cost of labour the creator must put in to receive royalties on every new sale or performance tends to zero. Of course, but you have much higher up front costs than the baker, who can bake less during periods of slack demand. You can't paint half of a picture and sell it for half the price you wanted to get. I'm not sure why you think a commodity model is even relevant here. An artistic work has a lot more in common with the erection of a building, which involves large amounts of labor and capital up front, in exchange for an ongoing stream of economic rents over the longer term. (I'm discounting the cost of marketing etc., which in most cases has only a second-order effect and doesn't change the final result.) A very dubious assumption. Marketing matters quite a lot IMHO, and certainly as far as films go there's a pretty strong correlation between the marketing budget and the probability of making a financial return. You micht like to check out the reference sources in this article, particularly Vogel: https://storyality.wordpress.com/2012/12/17/storyality-24-on-feature-films-and-roi-return-on-investment/ https://storyality.wordpress.com/2012/12/17/storyality-24-on... Add to this the income which copyright brokers receive from media distributors etc. without having any part in the creative process, and things become very unbalanced real quick. But it's not just creative, it's administrative as well. If you're a writer you don't want to spend half your time trying to audit your distributors. It would be much better if the artist could make dealings directly with the audience That's not realistic in the case of literary works, because you're still up against the copying problem - the text of a book is very easy to copy and it is the product itself. As Syd Barrett put it: "All middle men are bad." Much as I admire Syd Barrett artistically, have you considered that he was a) literally incompetent in the mental health sense, and b) that his economic wellbeing was to a large extent dependent on the good will of his former bandmates who ensured that he received royalty monies from record sales? Without their efforts as middlemen he'd probably have ended up institutionalized or homeless. There's a romantic viewpoint that middlemen in the arts world are all parasitic. They're not; usually the relationship is much more symbiotic, with different parties bringing different skills to the table. So people in Hollywood may grumble about agents in a general sense, but nobody who has one is in a hurry to go back to repping themselves unless they get so rich and famous as to set up their own production company, in which case they hire people to do a lot of the same work.