There is no copyright

[carld]

Originally Posted by crich70

I haven't read every post but I have to wonder. If copyright was abolished and every creative work was free how would the artists manage to survive long enough to create their works?

That's been my question from the word go, and I haven't seen a workable, realistic answer.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by carld

That's been my question from the word go, and I haven't seen a workable, realistic answer.

But exactly what is the question. Do you mean all potential artists? Do you mean a percentage of potential artists?

Some artists will survive because they are rich from the beginning. For example.

So I think the question is kind of misleading.

[carld]

Originally Posted by tompe

But exactly what is the question. Do you mean all potential artists? Do you mean a percentage of potential artists?

Some artists will survive because they are rich from the beginning. For example.

So I think the question is kind of misleading.

It's not the slightest bit misleading. It's an honest and direct question. There are a lots of artists making an income from their copyrighted work. How will they continue to make money off their work in a world with no copyright?

[Leyor]

It's not the slightest bit misleading. It's an honest and direct question. There are a lots of artists making an income from their copyrighted work. How will they continue to make money off their work in a world with no copyright?

Okay, here's a direct answer then, you can disagree with all you want that's your right.

1. Authors already earning their main income outside writing litterature would have a pretty unchanged situation. They'd be doing it because of Mastery, Wanting to contribute etc. (as in the movie I linked before).

2. The small percentage of full time authors, would either have to earn their income through the following ways:

a) Devicing a way of earning money through derivatives. Either from getting their work spread far and wide enough they get a solid fanbase that wants to:

Support the author through donation

Buy original products signed by the author which can't really be duplicated successfully

Buy luxury editions or memorabiliae which a high production cost which wouldnt make much sense replicating.

Sell cheap low income paperbacks for those wanting a cheap bound copy, where the author wouldnt make much pr. book, maybe a dollar, but it'd appeal to those who enjoy reading an actual book compared to copy paper, and having a physical representation on a shelf, but not being a fan enough to buy an actual luxury edition.

b) through having a product with enough value adding that it'd not make sense to copy it.
It could be a Picture book (as we've seen in a previous example was very successfull by taking advantage of pirating), or it could be a book that ties in with an ecosystem. Buying this book entitles you to join chat sessions with the author. Buying this book gives you a free ticket for the authors tour. It could be giving you early access to the book, or giving you discounts on previous works from the authors.

These are all models that has already proven to be capable of generating income in other markets, or in the book industry itself.

Thats how they'd make money, some wont be capable of innovating and they won't make money. But wherever there's a need and you can reach people, you can make money.

[carld]

Originally Posted by Leyor

Okay, here's a direct answer then, you can disagree with all you want that's your right.

You're right, and I do. No one of those things, or all of them put together, is a reasonable, viable replacement for income derived through the copyright system.

[elcreative]

+1 What he said... short, succinct and to the point...

Originally Posted by carld

You're right, and I do. No one of those things, or all of them put together, is a reasonable, viable replacement for income derived through the copyright system.

[Leyor]

Reminds me of this picture:



You've yet to offer up any solid argument or examples supporting your position.

[carld]

Originally Posted by Leyor

Reminds me of this picture:

You've yet to offer up any solid argument or examples supporting your position.

You've lost me there. What position am I supposed to be supporting through examples?

ps: your graphic doesn't have anything to do with anything, other than taking a swipe at people who don't agree with you.

[Leyor]

Not attempting to take a swing at you. Your free to disagree all you want.

You asked people to come up with some examples, multiple people have come up with ideas to how authors could still earn an income if copyright was changed. They might not be the best, if they were we'd probably be off making a fortune on them right now

But for us to have a dialogue, it'd be nice to have some solid arguments on why they wouldn't work when they already exist in other industries, or just some current or historical facts supporting your position.

I assume the reason we're all posting here, is so we can all come out a bit wiser.

[HansTWN]

Through all these long discussions, being just a reader, I really don't see any upside to copyright being abolished. Yes, copyright terms are too long, I agree. Yes, there are some problems on the fair usage side. But basically the system is working, it should be tweaked, not abolished.

I don't mind paying for books, it is an appreciation for the author's work. Will donations work to bring in as much? I seriously doubt that it would amount to more than a tiny fraction, given human nature. Yes, there would be other ways for authors to make money. The point is, why should we the readers force a new system down authors' and publishers' throats just because we could obtain their books by stealing them? It is their stuff, in the end, they should get to decide what to do with it. Readers only have rights when they are buyers.

Yes, authors and publishers will have to adjust their business model. Badgering users with DRM and overly restrictive lending policies is not the right way to do it. But the system as such is not the problem. Abolishing copyright would destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs in the US alone in an otherwise future proof industry (people will always be reading). Fix the system, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. What really needs to be fixed is the perception that distributing copyrighted ebooks beyond a small circle of friends and family (the very same ones you handed your pbooks to) and downloading from the darknet is not wrong. It is very wrong.

[djgreedo]

I don't think anyone has mentioned that copyright also costs artists.

Every time I go to buy a new ebook I have to NOT buy several books because they are not available to me (usually due to pointless geographic restrictions, sometimes due to the titles not being available on my reader's platform or not in ebook format at all).

Without copyright I would quite probably be able to get my hands on any book I want in whatever format I want.

DRM, publishing, etc. all add to the costs of getting a book to readers. Some of this cost would be removed if there was no copyright.

If artists and publishers can work out ways to make money without selling copies they will probably make more money than they will under what copyright will become (a huge, totally anonymous honour system).

[Leyor]

I really think the majority agree on the same main points. There's improvements to be made, copyright terms are too long, DRM is restrictive, and it feel's weird to pay more for a digital copy than an actual book, when you can lend the book away but the copy you're only allowed to keep yourself.

I think the actual point of contention that's being debated to death here is how we see that change coming about.

The original thread was about envisioning a world without copyright though.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

As for finding a way to encourage them to keep making things.......... no other way besides payment has been found yet

These sites prove people will write without being paid.

Obviously, money isn't the only reason people write. In fact, they do so in the face of threats of legal action and public denouncement as perverts.

I am confident that, with so many people wanting to write regardless of money, and with other people who want to read, and are willing to pay money or attention or offer other inducements, some method of encouragement will be established.

and I'm not talking about people writing for the joy of writing, of course people will still do that. I'm talking about getting your favourite author to write another book when he has bills to pay and food to put on the table and doesn't have time to write it because no one wants to pay for it unless he gives them something extra on top of writing it

Right now, he has to do "something extra" on top of writing: he has to deal with contracts, and publicity events, and document formatting, and possible scheduling updates, and rewrites to an editor's preferences. If he wants to self-publish, he has to research formats, sales websites, establish an online presence, and exercise some accounting skills.

The writers at those archives don't have to deal with any of that. They get to "just write." Changing the "extra stuff" will change which authors are financially successful; it won't change the amount of creative content available. Right now, there are authors languishing because they can't negotiate a contract, but could easily write a script to include a semi-customized note inside each emailed copy of a novella. ("This ebook was bought by [name] on [date]; thank you for your support!" With extra details yanked from a webform.)

I'm yet to be convinced that any "method of income that works without the support of copyright" will magically appear.

Magically? No. With great stress and much yelling and a number of talented authors' works getting lost to history. And other authors & artists, currently held back by copyright, free to flourish.

Suppose someone wants to release "the complete annotated Harry Potter & the Sorcerer's Stone," with every paragraph marked with meanings, references, citations of fanfiction that refer to it, real-world incidents connected to it, and so on. Right now, nobody would attempt releasing such a book--the lawsuit would bankrupt anyone, even if the ruling went in their favor. Reproducing an entire Harry Potter book, even for research purposes, would be a hard argument for fair use.

And fanfic would be legal to sell. I grant that the vast majority of the over 500,000 Harry Potter stories at Fanfiction.net are not worth publishing beyond a devoted fanbase, but some would stand alone as excellent novels, and being able to sell them, even if only with the added value of personal notes or chatroom discussions, would encourage those authors to write more.

I'd love to see a well-written rewrite of the Harry Potter books from Ron Weasley's point of view. It may already be written. It'll be available for sale in no more than another hundred and fifty years, barring strange medical advances.

Insisting that copyright protects authors and artists ignores the ones being suppressed by it--the ones who could be wealthy if they loved Dickens instead of Rand, the ones who want to make movies of Batman instead of Robin Hood, the ones who want to write about the characters they grew up with, not the ones their grandparents grew up with, the ones who want to perform and re-interpret the music that shaped their youth.

Focusing on "what would we lose if copyright vanished" misses the explosion of artistic works that would suddenly be available to share, and sell in any way the creators could come up with.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

These sites prove people will write without being paid.

Obviously, money isn't the only reason people write. In fact, they do so in the face of threats of legal action and public denouncement as perverts.

I am confident that, with so many people wanting to write regardless of money, and with other people who want to read, and are willing to pay money or attention or offer other inducements, some method of encouragement will be established.

As the very next part you quoted me specifically states, I'm not talking about those who want to write for the fun of writing, who do so in their spare time around their day jobs.

Of course there will always be people who write because they want to. I occassionally try my hand at it even though I know I suck at it something fierce! That's besides the point though.

My point is why should we put in place a system which forces everyone to do so because we know that there will always be people who choose to do so?

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Right now, he has to do "something extra" on top of writing: he has to deal with contracts, and publicity events, and document formatting, and possible scheduling updates, and rewrites to an editor's preferences. If he wants to self-publish, he has to research formats, sales websites, establish an online presence, and exercise some accounting skills.

And when the book hits the market one is expected to pay for the privilege of reading it.

What is being suggested is that once the book hits the market the author should then be required to do even more to convince people to pay for it.

It really is no different to your employer saying "glad you've done all your duties and taken care of all your work required to get to this point, now do something more for me to convince me to pay for that work you've already done".

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

The writers at those archives don't have to deal with any of that. They get to "just write."

And anyone who wants to do this is free to do so right now with copyright law still in existence.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Changing the "extra stuff" will change which authors are financially successful; it won't change the amount of creative content available. Right now, there are authors languishing because they can't negotiate a contract, but could easily write a script to include a semi-customized note inside each emailed copy of a novella. ("This ebook was bought by [name] on [date]; thank you for your support!" With extra details yanked from a webform.)

And yet again, anyone is free to publish as they wish now and give it away for free and not bother with any of that tiresome contract stuff even though we still have copyright law.

I don't see that as a reason to insist everyone do it that way.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Magically? No. With great stress and much yelling and a number of talented authors' works getting lost to history. And other authors & artists, currently held back by copyright, free to flourish.

Suppose someone wants to release "the complete annotated Harry Potter & the Sorcerer's Stone," with every paragraph marked with meanings, references, citations of fanfiction that refer to it, real-world incidents connected to it, and so on. Right now, nobody would attempt releasing such a book--the lawsuit would bankrupt anyone, even if the ruling went in their favor. Reproducing an entire Harry Potter book, even for research purposes, would be a hard argument for fair use.

And fanfic would be legal to sell. I grant that the vast majority of the over 500,000 Harry Potter stories at Fanfiction.net are not worth publishing beyond a devoted fanbase, but some would stand alone as excellent novels, and being able to sell them, even if only with the added value of personal notes or chatroom discussions, would encourage those authors to write more.

I'd love to see a well-written rewrite of the Harry Potter books from Ron Weasley's point of view. It may already be written. It'll be available for sale in no more than another hundred and fifty years, barring strange medical advances.

Insisting that copyright protects authors and artists ignores the ones being suppressed by it--the ones who could be wealthy if they loved Dickens instead of Rand, the ones who want to make movies of Batman instead of Robin Hood, the ones who want to write about the characters they grew up with, not the ones their grandparents grew up with, the ones who want to perform and re-interpret the music that shaped their youth.

Focusing on "what would we lose if copyright vanished" misses the explosion of artistic works that would suddenly be available to share, and sell in any way the creators could come up with.

Yes there would be alot of creative and even worthwhile derivitives if copyright were abolished. But seriously, should we say to creators "sorry you can't have any control over your creations because someone else wants to use it to make money rather than using the wealth of other stuff currently available".

Just as there will always be people who want to write for the joy of writing there will be people who would love to have their characters co-opted into other people's stories. But should we force everyone to do that? Why can't those people who want to write for the joy of writing get together with the ones who like to have their characters used and have a great time? Why should we force Rowling to let her characters be used just because someone else wants to?

Cheers,
PKFFW

[crich70]

While without copyright you might see some artistic works being written what would be the point of writing them? Without copyright the author wouldn't be guaranteed to even make a single penny on their works. Anyone could download a book from the net for example and repost it for free since without copyright the author would have no claim to their own property. He/she couldn't sue the person who had made the book available without his/her permission because no such would be needed (in the legal sense) because the work wasn't copyrighted. Take the books posted here at MR for an example. With a few exceptions (Cory Doctrow and Jeffrey Carver to name two) all the books posted at MR are considered out of copyright in Canada where the site's computers are based (if I understand correctly) and Canadian copyright law say that a book is out of copyright after a set number of years (I forget how many) after the author's death (as I understand it). So if I were to post one or more of the HP books here (since Ms. Rowling is still very much with us) I would be liable for copyright infringement and in theory MR would be the co-defendant for having allowed me to post them. I have no doubt they would remove such books (those still in copyright) that were posted illegally asap after discovering them of course. The reason being the author and her publisher still own the rights to be the publisher of said books. Of course Ms. Rowling is probably the exception rather than the rule as far as how much she has made on the HP books in that most authors probably don't have such a following, but most authors write (IMO) for several reasons at once. 1. They like to write 2. They want to share their dreams with others 3. They hope to make some $ by sharing their dreams with others. A world without copyright where anyone could just grab a copy of their works would deny many authors reason # 3 and possibly make it less likely that they would try to publish. We all like to be appreciated for our work and for an author part of that appreciation is making some $ from their labors.