[bingle]

Originally Posted by NatCh

Sorry, bingle, but you've hit a hot-button for me, so now you must endure a rant.

Excellent! I ranted a bit myself, so I only expect the same in return. And of course, you always write well-thought-out comments that provoke thought - and you do it politely ;-)

Originally Posted by NatCh

The originals are just as scarce as they ever were -- only one person can create each original, the fact that copying and distribution is cheap and easy hasn't changed that.

This is absolutely true. Originals still need to be created. BUT, in the past, those originals were paid for through the sales of copies. (That is, the current business model: close to nothing for the original work, then a percentage for each copy sold).

Originally Posted by NatCh

Very few folks are wealthy enough to do something like writing for free -- if they depend on it for their bread and cheese then they need some safe-guard on the income (I'm not arguing for any particular approach, only pointing out the issue). In the absence of such a safe-guard, most will have to find some other way to put food on the table.

Yes, I also agree. We, as a society, want to encourage writers to write, singers to sing, and artists to create art. In order to do that, they need to have some income, and time in which to create their works.

Originally Posted by NatCh

The next point is usually something like "true writers have to write, and will do so regardless." That's generally true. But it's extremely low, petty, greedy, and several other unprintable things, to take advantage of that fact to leave true writers in poverty because we, as a society, refuse to acknowledge that they should have some way to secure a living from their labors, just because it's cheap and easy to rip them off.

I agree, mostly. Society should absolutely fund writers and artists as much as possible. That's where our culture comes from, which is the definition of a society - few things should be more important!

However, you do have to recognize the growing importance and presence of "amateur" creators - YouTube, the Open Source Movement, the Creative Commons, blog posts like this one (hey, I could get paid $0.005 a word for this stuff! ;-)). Obviously, only a small fraction of content is created this way, but it's growing. There are even full-length, fan-made movies these days. However, I don't think this sort of content will be the only type people want. We will certainly want professional, full-time content creators still working away.

Originally Posted by NatCh

If they can't reliably sell what they write, then they can't afford to write -- and they can't sell it if the filthy so and so down the way is giving away copies or selling them for pennies. If the impact is severe enough then they'll have to choose to either stop writing, or starve to death, and either way, nothing much gets written.

OK, this is where most of my disagreement rests, I think. You have in your mind a particular business model for writers getting paid - and it's one that's been in force for a while now. But I think there are other ways of doing things. I realized the other day that I get paid for creating copyrighted works - and I get a salary for doing so. Many people are in a similar situation. I see no royalties from my work, I've traded royalties for a steady paycheck. So that's one model, possibly - writers in cubicles, getting paid per annum rather than per librum ;-)

Another is a transition back to the patronage model. Writers would be supported either by a single wealthy individual or corporation, or a group of fans, contributing money held in escrow. A few authors and musicians have tried something like this... Another is the sort of multi-talented, hybrid model of writer like Cory Doctorow - he sells some books, but he gives his writing away for free and makes his living on a mishmash of speaker's fees, University posts, donations, advertising, and who knows what else.

Yet another is the National Endowment for the Arts model - grants given from the government (or private entities) to writers and artists to enable them to work for the benefit of society.

Honestly, I don't know what the best way to promote authorship is. However, I don't think we get to pick (we being society). We can try different things, like the NEA, but eventually the market will sort the whole thing out.

We also can't continue to hold on to the current model. We can try desperately, but it's like trying to make a religion illegal. A government can try to stomp out the practice, but they're only going to come close to succeeding if they use totalitarian methods. (This is why I think it's important to recognize that the *goal* of copyright is the public benefit, and to try and contrast that with the harm caused by copyright laws - fairly minimal so far, but we're approaching a future where we have more and more draconian laws in order to stop something that's as easy as breathing. I'm not sure we'll ever get to levels like "The Right to Read", but it's looking more and more like Prohibition, or the War on Some Drugs...)

Anyway, water flows downhill, and the market takes the path of least resistance. People won't stop copying information for free, just as they didn't keep riding horses after the advent of the automobile, or copying books by hand after the advent of the printing press. Trying to make sure the saddle-makers and copyists don't go out of business is the wrong battle to be fighting - and it's bound to be a losing one, in the end.

Originally Posted by NatCh

Okay, end of rant.

I'd agree, however, that copyright law is seriously overdue for a total rebuild from the ground up, and the non-physical nature of modern media needs to be addressed ... among many other issues, but protecting the concept of protecting the creators of them from shameless exploitation, and balancing it against the good of society at large should be heart and soul of that re-build.

Ahh, see, copyright law is *all about* the good of society at large. It actually doesn't give a fig for the creators of content, except as a means to that end. And I do feel sorry for the writers who will have to stumble and fail in the search for the next business model - there will be some who deserve to succeed, but choose the wrong way to do it. But in the end, society will be better off for having made the transition.