There is no copyright

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by tompe

Copyright has nearly nothing to do with scientific innovation. So what are you talking about? Are you confusing copyright and patents?

Copyright covers scientific reports & research as well; it's supposed to encourage them by letting scientists know their time won't be wasted & they can sell their analyses.

While use of someone else's facts is covered by fair use, reprinting entire reports or books is not. (Someone could spend years putting together a biography of Jimi Hendrix; while the bare facts aren't copyrightable, the narrative that puts them together is. And someone could run tests on depleted uranium to find out how to handle it safely; while the charts are likely to be grabbed by anyone, the description of the tests and the detailed conclusions are covered by copyright.)

How copyright interacts with scientific & academic research is a bit of a mess; separating the creative format from the raw data is complicated. But there are indeed hundreds of scientific journals that don't allow their articles to be copied around freely.

More sharing would allow more research--but potentially discourage publication; why should a researcher publish widely when he could publish just in his university for the same amount of pay?

[kovidgoyal]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

More sharing would allow more research--but potentially discourage publication; why should a researcher publish widely when he could publish just in his university for the same amount of pay?

Academic scientists are almost never paid significant amounts for publication. Instead, their renumeration is based essentially on their reputation, and reputation is built up by publishing papers that other members of the community find useful.

IMO, copyright is completely irrelevant to academic publishing. For example, I used to be an academic physicist and in physics all papers are published in an open access to all electronic repository before being published in an actual journal.

I'm sure there are probably a few fields of academic endeavor where this is not true, most probably those that have been heavily influenced by corporations, like biology/medicine.

[carld]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Then what are we talking about? Should writing a book full time for 6 months give 25,000 dollars in return? Something like that?

I'm saying that taking in one or two donations from a Donate Button shows that they don't work as a substitute for having people buy your books. I thought that was obvious.

[taosaur]

I'm not going to assume I know what would happen if copyright ceased, but there are certainly more possibilities than "Everything's free and nobody gets paid." It's simplistic to imagine that all profit in exploiting creative work would vanish with the loss of exclusivity. Money, like life and love, will find a way.

First broadcast or publication would still have value. Certified authenticity would still have value. Prestige formats would still have value. Brand recognition, promotion and distribution networks would still have value. All of these things would have even greater value in a world where not only many copies but also many versions of a work became available as soon as it hits the net. I could re-write Stephen King's next book to replace the protagonist with Chuck Norris and the antagonist with Pedobear, or vice versa. Meanwhile Bantam (or whoever) has Steve saying, "This is the one I wrote, right here. But Pedobear...that's some funny shit."

Artists, like machinists and mid-level managers, would be paid for producing their work, rather than seeing continuing income form work already produced. Celebrity authors would see additional income from the same sources as all celebrities: endorsements and appearances. Everyone at every level of creative industries would have to continually produce, add value, and innovate if they want to eat.

[Greg Anos]

It's a business...

Which means you will have to be a businessman.

First, your business has to be noticed.
Second, it has to produce something that people are willing to pay for.
Third, you have to encourage them to come back, and buy again.

None of the bedrock ideas are dependent on I.P. They apply for every business.

If you can get noticed, (a big if in a low barrier-to-entry business), you have to provide what the customer wants, in a way the customer wants it. If that is free, then you have to find some value-added way of getting people to pay you some money. It may or may not be connected with your product. Here are some ideas...

Autographed and personalized e-book. You can get a pirate for free, but a handwritten (scanned) personalization to you for .99 cents...(and it's worthless to somebody else who's not named you...)

Sell character names to fans. For my next novel, if you want to be a character in it, you can be one for only X dollars (payable in advance). You want to be a bigger character? Fill out this personality profile so I can write with you in mind. (And provide any personal catchphrases and when you would use them.) Available at $10X or all the market will bear. (Maybe an auction?)

You the purchaser might have a piece of your handwriting in the book tied to a character (plot-dependent, of course). (A ransom note from a bad guy, for example.)

Keep a file of you customer's e-mail addresses. Let them know when somethings coming up in your business, like a new character list to fill. (Money, money!) Use the fan list to have a fan party occasionally (meet the author.)

Finally, be creative. You're a creative writer, aren't you? Create your own marketing ideas...

If you haven't been noticed, none of this will work. You've got to be noticed first!!!!!

RSE

[Greg Anos]

Please note: All of the above are positive things for your customer. You're not complaining, yelling, questioning the morals, ect. of your customers.

They're being treated with the care and respect a customer should receive.

[MJK2111]

Originally Posted by leebase

History has proven that copyright actually stymies book creation. There hasn't been a single worthwhile book created since the advent of the copyright.

Lee

[carld]

Originally Posted by taosaur

First broadcast or publication would still have value. Certified authenticity would still have value. Prestige formats would still have value. Brand recognition, promotion and distribution networks would still have value.

What value would those things possibly have when every creative effort, save the physical arts like sculpture, can be instantly and legally transmitted to everyone who cares to download a copy? The market for prestige formats can't possibly be very large. It's not very large now, and I don't see it growing under the new no-copyright rules.

Brand recognition is only useful in the sale of items. Plus, do they really apply in a digital non-copyright world? Who cares what company originally produced the book, movie, or music you just downloaded? No one, that's who. Promotion is pointless unless you have a product to sell, which you don't, beside that costs money it doesn't generate money. And distribution will be carried out by torrent, legally, and quickly.

Originally Posted by taosaur

All of these things would have even greater value in a world where not only many copies but also many versions of a work became available as soon as it hits the net. I could re-write Stephen King's next book to replace the protagonist with Chuck Norris and the antagonist with Pedobear, or vice versa. Meanwhile Bantam (or whoever) has Steve saying, "This is the one I wrote, right here. But Pedobear...that's some funny shit."

You could, and you'd sell exactly zero copies. No one cares about your rewrite when they've got a perfectly legal copy of the original. And none of those things you list will have any value at all except the small market for prestige copies.

Originally Posted by taosaur

Artists, like machinists and mid-level managers, would be paid for producing their work, rather than seeing continuing income form work already produced. Celebrity authors would see additional income from the same sources as all celebrities: endorsements and appearances. Everyone at every level of creative industries would have to continually produce, add value, and innovate if they want to eat.

I think you're completely wrong about all that.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by carld

You could, and you'd sell exactly zero copies. No one cares about your rewrite when they've got a perfectly legal copy of the original. And none of those things you list will have any value at all except the small market for prestige copies.

Pride & Prejudice & Zombies is selling well.

[carld]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Pride & Prejudice & Zombies is selling well.

Because that's a well written parody or derivation, not just replacing the main character with Chuck Norris for LOLz. Plus in a no-copyright world that's just legally copied and distributed to anyone who wants it for free. So no more selling well.

Plus King isn't at Bantam any more, since there's no money to be made from traditional writing and publishing he's switched to offering hand signed "prestige" copies over the interwebs.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

How copyright interacts with scientific & academic research is a bit of a mess; separating the creative format from the raw data is complicated. But there are indeed hundreds of scientific journals that don't allow their articles to be copied around freely.

More sharing would allow more research--but potentially discourage publication; why should a researcher publish widely when he could publish just in his university for the same amount of pay?

For non-textbook publishing (that is the publishing that drives scientific innovation) you never get paid for publishing. You have to pay a lot to be able to read what is published. Of course a researcher would like to be published in a lot of places since it increases the readership and increases the chances to get cited. And being cited is important for getting money.

I would say that copyright and the current system with journals that are very expensive is hindering scientific innovation.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by tompe

I would say that copyright and the current system with journals that are very expensive is hindering scientific innovation.

Copyright is what protects the raw research notes from being grabbed and published by someone else before the original researcher is done. It also prevents other people from expanding an article into a book without some type of permission.

However, I agree that copyright restrictions cause a lot of problems in academic publishing. Copyright was never designed for open access use of someone else's writings, and it flounders a lot when it's applied to those areas.

[taosaur]

Originally Posted by carld

What value would those things possibly have when every creative effort, save the physical arts like sculpture, can be instantly and legally transmitted to everyone who cares to download a copy? The market for prestige formats can't possibly be very large. It's not very large now, and I don't see it growing under the new no-copyright rules.

Brand recognition is only useful in the sale of items. Plus, do they really apply in a digital non-copyright world? Who cares what company originally produced the book, movie, or music you just downloaded? No one, that's who. Promotion is pointless unless you have a product to sell, which you don't, beside that costs money it doesn't generate money. And distribution will be carried out by torrent, legally, and quickly.

Legality is hardly the only thing stopping everyone from torrenting every scrap of media they consume right now. The vast majority of people prefer to have a verifiably authentic copy from a known, trusted source, decreasing the risk of viruses, spyware, defects and distortion. In a world without copyright, there would be even more noise in the signal the farther you got from 'official channels,' increasing the value of brand recognition. In a more open market, there's also more value for consumers in discovering and creators in being discovered, i.e. promotion. Whoever contracts with the creator to distribute their work also simply has it first. All of these things still have value, even if it would need to be leveraged differently than in the present system, and even if that value is diminished in comparison to the present system.

Milking creative works for all they're worth precedes the notion of copyright and will outlast it so long as there is some semblance of intelligent life in the universe.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Copyright is what protects the raw research notes from being grabbed and published by someone else before the original researcher is done. It also prevents other people from expanding an article into a book without some type of permission.
.

I do not think it is copyright that does this. If you steel someones notes and publish it in your name than that seems to me to be some kind of fraud. So why do you need copyright?

Also extending something to a book without telling who has written what seems to be fraud also or plagiarism.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by tompe

I do not think it is copyright that does this. If you steel someones notes and publish it in your name than that seems to me to be some kind of fraud. So why do you need copyright?

Someone else could grab the notes, add an intro, and publish under both names. That still gives the original author credit, but not as much as they would get on their own.

Also extending something to a book without telling who has written what seems to be fraud also or plagiarism.

Not if the book is published as, "Super Breakthrough by John Q Schemer, based on an article by Jane Scientist." And the article could be quoted selectively to support JQ Schemer's pet theories, when the original didn't support them at all.