On what basis do you dismiss an entire category of business models? Youtube, Kickstarter, Patreon: people are already living off of this model. In fact, I'd go so far as to argue that many of these people derive no benefit from copyright law right now; it certainly isn't helping them "actually eat".
The models you describe depend on copyright. It's why I can't go to Kickstarter, copy all the work of a successful artist, and then do my own fund raisers and take their proceeds.
I argue so hard against this stuff because I used to believe it. Then I thought it through.
No, they don't. Many of these artists receive their patronage and give all of their work away for free.
It's why I can't go to Kickstarter, copy all the work of a successful artist, and then do my own fund raisers and take their proceeds.
Why don't you try that and see how it works? Society operates on more than laws, it also operates on norms. Doing what you just described would make you a social outcast and open you up to widespread social retaliation; the legal system need not apply.
Why would readers want to tipjar a person who stole credits from the original author?
Also, it's pretty easy to identify who's the original author. Simply, the person who posted it first is very likely the original author. Especially so if the author has a portfolio of works that identify the author.
For example, there's a $10 million suit against Warner Brothers of the film Gravity. Tess Gerritsen, a writer, alleges that the film film depicts the major events in a book she worte in 1999 and optioned to a film production company. The problem is that in the meantime that company no longer exists after a bunch of acquisitions, mergers and so on, and although there's good reason to think her book wound up in the hands of the film's writer/director and that the film is indeed derivative o the book, her legal problem is an inability (at present) to prove that Warner Brothers is the ultimate beneficial owner of the firm she was dealing with back in 1999. The problem here is not so much copyright as a lack of transparency in corporation law.
Isn't this direct evidence against the claim that "copyright protects individuals against big corporations"? If it weren't for copyright, Warner Brothers would collapse and we'd be back to holding each other accountable on a personal level.
Kickstarter and Patreon fund future work, not past work.
This is actually what makes them so much better than the copyright-publisher model, because they prevent that exact scenario that you describe. If I record some music, sign it to a label, and then leave, the label owns the rights, and payments for copies of that music goes to them. If I record some music, give it away for free, and advertise a Kickstarter for my next album, nobody gains anything from trying to sell my previous album. You're not paying for a copy of a work that was already worked; you're funding the promise of me doing more work, and that promise has to come from the person who is actually doing the work. So the money has to go to the person actually doing the work.
Since there is no copy involved, copyright doesn't help. If I'm not funded and take some boring desk job, zero copies will exist.
I notice you're leaving out the part where the label gives you money in return for those rights, as well as your ability to negotiate the terms of the agreement you sign.
If I record some music, give it away for free, and advertise a Kickstarter for my next album, nobody gains anything from trying to sell my previous album.
What's better about that? You're not engineering an outcome in which you get paid, you're engineering an outcome in which nobody makes any money, and you think that by doing so you've now brought the publishers down to your level and so you've achieved some kind of economic parity.
You're basically saying that best strategy for people in the arts is to do a bunch of work for nothing, hope that it becomes popular (by doing additional unpaid work on marketing) and then go on strike.
The question should be how to monetize your labor? That answer isn't easily given but I can guess it would require a whole new method of payment. For example, a musician in the vast majority of cases lives from the money earned in performances as very few are writers of their own songs (that's where the current money is found in terms of the music industry). Thus, musicians would monetize as they always have, through payment for performances. It's when you get into writing lyrics or entire songs (sheet music plus lyrics) is where things may become complex. If the writer and musician are the same person then the person would have to default to performances to ensure some measure of payment. As for the song itself, that would be something left to the creator to figure out.
As for writing books, well that's even more complex at least in terms of reprints. But first runs would still go through publishers like Amazon which means there's some guarantee of revenue (just not to the projected sums you may assume). But today's small time writer isn't working the gravy train any more than the musician is. If anything, both musician and writer are just could/would be profiteers.
It's blind luck either profession finds success. Copyright doesn't offer much in the way of protection. What happens now is that human beings in general value your work. Thus pay you as we do now. Copyright is just the formality to prevent non-payment from other parties such as publishers. Copyright today isn't much of a benefit even there since many publishers write contracts to their advantage. What should happen is that copyright should largely (and in my opinion solely) apply to companies. And it should be by default that the majority of all proceeds be held in trust to the creator of the work even if the company in question offered the means to produce said proceeds. I think this approach would go further to ensure artists and content creators have a better chance at a livable wage. But it shouldn't include lifetime of the creator plus X years in any capacity. It should be up the creator of the work to register for the copyright as before the 1970s. And it should be easy as filling out a form on the web with a copy of the original work in question for verification with the US Copyright office or its analogs in other countries.
So, within a State we have to ask the question regarding how to best protect both labor and the products of someone's labor. It's not as easy as writing a computer program to be sure. I'm just pointing out that effectively all copyright doesn't effectively pay a proper wage as like all titled property it benefits those who can leverage the legal system to their favor. And historically speaking, copyright law has inevitably favored those who can pay the lawyers the most which is not the vast majority of creators (as labor).
Enforcement has always been separate, even before copyright and from the very beginnings of the Stationers monopoly.
Despite the existence of the High Commission, the reality of censorial control of the press at this time did not primarily lie with the stationers. Certainly, they had a role to play in the politics and practice of sixteenth century censorship,[24] but in fact it was not the stationers but rather "[t]wo long-standing institutions, parliament and the royal prerogative, [that] proved to be Elizabethan England's most useful means for effecting censorship" [Clegg, Press Censorship in Elizabethan England, 19]
http://www.copyrighthistory.org/cam/tools/request/showRecord...
It really could just be as easy as writing a computer program. Spotify is basically a voluntary collection agency that honors IP contracts.
If we can make it so the legal and accounting services are computerized, with software both writing and enforcing contracts, we could make copyright registration and transfer settlement incredibly cheap. That's the main reason why copyright law has favored those who can pay the lawyers and accountants the most, they have always been necessary in order to make the entire system function.
The potential inequity of litigation outcomes doesn't mean that I would be better off without this property right.
It's not a 1-to-1 comparison to copyright of music and art but I think the principle still applies. Focus on making a product someone wants. If you can't price it property the first time then try another price or business model.
No, that's an economic decision you made to enter into a work-for-hire arrangement instead of selling your own product/service - whose assets you would own - and you are now trying to foist that economic arrangement on other people who don't want to enter into it.
But today's small time writer isn't working the gravy train any more than the musician is. If anything, both musician and writer are just could/would be profiteers.
Well, excuse me for wanting to create and sell my own literary product. WTF.
What should happen is that copyright should largely (and in my opinion solely) apply to companies. And it should be by default that the majority of all proceeds be held in trust to the creator of the work even if the company in question offered the means to produce said proceeds.
It seems as if you propose establishing a more equal playing field by abolishing the economic incentive for capital owners to invest money in the production of cultural goods.
It should be up the creator of the work to register for the copyright as before the 1970s. And it should be easy as filling out a form on the web with a copy of the original work in question for verification with the US Copyright office or its analogs in other countries.
Well, this is how it works now if you want to recover statutory damages. I create work, I pay $50 to register with the copyright office and supply a deposit copy, eventually I get a receipt and if someone infringes on the copyright I can recover punitive damages. Otherwise I'm limited to economic damages which are a lot trickier to recover, as many infringers can hide behind shell companies and just let them go bankrupt. In practice publication deals typically require that the copyright be registered in advance of the deal so as to avoid messy and expensive litigation at a later date over exactly when the work was created, likewise many publishers prefer to be approached by attorneys or literary agents rather than by authors, precisely because those professionals will have the legalities in order at the commencement of negotiations and publishers will know exactly what they're buying.
Nope, it's a reality. The majority of people who work are not business or capital owners. It's a fact of capitalism which is not immutable.
Well, excuse me for wanting to create and sell my own literary product. WTF.
Then deal with the hard reality that being a writer isn't always profitable just as being a programmer isn't always profitable. The market does not promise any ROI for any vocation or enterprise. You have to see it through like the rest of us.
It seems as if you propose establishing a more equal playing field by abolishing the economic incentive for capital owners to invest money in the production of cultural goods.
Capital owners are the problem with our economy, yes.
Otherwise I'm limited to economic damages which are a lot trickier to recover, as many infringers can hide behind shell companies and just let them go bankrupt.
And yet the primary target of copyright infringement these days are kids who torrent the latest Taylor Swift album. I'm sorry if I'm not sympathetic to your cause when the actual infringers have no money of their own or little of it to give to you.
In the end, you seem very much invested in keeping the status quo where it's impossible to achieve a practical method to recover losses. The current system is built with the assumption that one size fits all. The reality is that there is no one size fits all solution. If you want to recover losses from the teenager who torrented your work then figure out a monetization scheme. Don't go to a lawyer and bully a kid who probably doesn't even have a personal checking account. Figure out how to price it right for that kid. Otherwise, just get out of the market place because your reaction is like that of certain libertarians I've debated where they justify the killing of a kid who steals a stick of bubblegum from a news stand.