There is no copyright

[carld]

Alright, since you asked, here's my opinion on what you've posted. First I think you're working from a false premise -- that there are only two types of artists, a few full-timers who care about their income and all the rest, who don't. I think that's completely wrong. You don't have to be a full-time writer to generate a significant part of your income from writing.


>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).

Have to disagree. The situation would be entirely changed. Some authors will continue to write for the love of doing it, but in my opinion most, given no expectation of income or even control over their own work, will not.


>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

We've already seen from the authors posting on this forum that donations don't work. Could that change in the future? Maybe, but I doubt it very much. Besides that, who in their right mind is going to want to be dependent on possible handouts from a notoriously fickle fandom for their income? Probably no one.


>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.


I'll group these two together. Such things are already being done. And except for a very few artists at the very top like Rawlings, luxury editions, signed copies, and memorabilia are pretty much worthless. And if it we're worth doing, then someone is certainly going to be able to produce luxury copies for less than the author can. There's always someone willing to make a little less profit to get the sale.

Also, we already have tons of ripoff merchandise for every worthwhile franchise under the sun. This will only explode once it becomes completely legal to do so. If there's money to be made from merchandising there will always be someone there willing to do it cheaper.

At best prestige editions and so be an extremely limited option for most artists.

>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.

If a book is worth printing that cheaply then someone else will always be willing make them cheaper, especially since there's no law against it. How low, and how cheap will authors have to go to beat out competition (with their own books)?


>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.

This can be lumped in with prestige editions as well. Yes, there will still be a small market for books as objects. However, if a book is worth copying and reproducing cheaply then someone else will do it. Picture books are more resistant to electronic copying because digital copies don't have the same impact and they aren't viewable object like big coffeetable picture books. But they're easily copied physically if there's money to be made and it's legal to do so.

Regarding your other points. There's no value in book discounts since any previous works are already available free for the taking.

There might be some value in chat or tour invitations, but those things already aren't well attended. I've been too enough author chats to see that, and book tours generally draw extremely small crowds unless you're a top author, and even then it's hit or miss. Plus book tours don't make money, they cost it.

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

I say you're completely wrong about that. I don't think they've been proven at all. These activities might generate a small amount of money but they're absolutely no replacement for actually selling books.


>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.

You can reach people all you want, but if they're already getting your product for free, or cheaper, from somewhere else, you aren't going to make one red cent.

[carld]

Originally Posted by djgreedo

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).

That's a huge if. Others will disagree, but I've seen nothing posted that shows me a practical way an author will make any significant income without copyright.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

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?

We shouldn't. I'm not advocating the destruction of copyright. I'm saying, it wouldn't be the end of all creativity ever, and we'd find ways to pay creators--some of them, anyway--for their work. (Right now, we only pay some creators. The mix of who gets paid and who works for free would shift.)

I'm in complete agreement that copyright should not be eliminated; I can't think of a setup to replace it that would result in as much open creativity and ability to reward artists & scientists for their efforts. I can't think of anything better. I can't think of anything as good.

I can think of a few ways to provide some payment, and a few ways that could provide rewards to artists who currently aren't supported, and I trust that, sans copyright, people would come up with more methods.

The most good I could imagine coming out of the removal of copyright law is its reinstatement with shorter terms, better detail about what's covered, and more specific fair use-esque exceptions.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by carld

That's a huge if. Others will disagree, but I've seen nothing posted that shows me a practical way an author will make any significant income without copyright.

Please understand that the content of a book was not seen as property for most of recorded history. The introduction of this idea into the public mind, and the ratification of copyright laws required the acceptance of quite a few number of if's along property conception lines. But these are just conceptions after all.

Abandoning copyright would require some more if's as well. Please accept these new if's.

[carld]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Please understand that the content of a book was not seen as property for most of recorded history. The introduction of this idea into the public mind, and the ratification of copyright laws required the acceptance of quite a few number of if's along property conception lines. But these are just conceptions after all.

It's been the law of the land and in the public mind for 230 years, or about as long as the United States has been a country. And don't say "please understand" it's condescending.

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Abandoning copyright would require some more if's as well. Please accept these new if's.

I wish you would please accept that people have a right to be paid for their work, and you can't have their efforts for free just because you want it. It's not the 1700s any more, just because the no-copyright model might have worked then (and I haven't researched it to say if it really did or not), doesn't mean it will work now.

[Leyor]

Very good reply, too late to reply to it all. Just have a queston, from what I read your central premise is that if it can be made, someone else will always be making it cheaper.

Basically your view is pro protectionism and you don't believe in the free market or its ability to regulate itself? Is that correct? I am not ascribing you any political motives here, it's a genuine question to understand how your world view differs so much from mine.

Coming from a mixed background, I visit my family in Thailand every year. I believe it serves as a microcosm for how the world would be without copyright. Many things are copied, that's true. But one thing I've noticed is that a) identical copies are almost impossible to find, only people who can't afford the original product buys these copies. and b) Despite big major book chains being in major growth, selling both Thai and International books at the same price as in an UK bookstore (which is quite expensive for thai people). Copying of books basically doesn't exist, despite having the option to copy it, noone does to make a profit. The only exception being high priced study/software books, that are priced so high most thai couldn't possible ever afford to buy it. They do gladly pay 10 pound a book though.

I find that fascinating.

[carld]

Originally Posted by Leyor

Very good reply, too late to reply to it all. Just have a queston, from what I read your central premise is that if it can be made, someone else will always be making it cheaper.

Basically your view is pro protectionism and you don't believe in the free market or its ability to regulate itself? Is that correct? I am not ascribing you any political motives here, it's a genuine question to understand how your world view differs so much from mine.

Coming from a mixed background, I visit my family in Thailand every year. I believe it serves as a microcosm for how the world would be without copyright. Many things are copied, that's true. But one thing I've noticed is that a) identical copies are almost impossible to find, only people who can't afford the original product buys these copies. and b) Despite big major book chains being in major growth, selling both Thai and International books at the same price as in an UK bookstore (which is quite expensive for thai people). Copying of books basically doesn't exist, despite having the option to copy it, noone does to make a profit. The only exception being high priced study/software books, that are priced so high most thai couldn't possible ever afford to buy it. They do gladly pay 10 pound a book though.

I find that fascinating.

No, my position is pro author, and realistic. What I'm doing is pointing out why I think your suggested methods won't work. Why you're suddenly turning that discussion into an examination of my personal beliefs on free trade, while also supposing that you can ascribe this or that belief to me, baffles me.

As to the situation in Thailand, I can't speak to that, as I've never been there, and have little knowledge of it. I can only speak to the way things are done here in the US. In this country bootlegging, or counterfeiting, merchandise, including books, music and movies is big business. We routinely read about busts and the seizure of fake goods. If this was legal and could be done above board and without fear of arrest, then as I said, I expect these operations would grow explosively.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

We shouldn't. I'm not advocating the destruction of copyright. I'm saying, it wouldn't be the end of all creativity ever, and we'd find ways to pay creators--some of them, anyway--for their work. (Right now, we only pay some creators. The mix of who gets paid and who works for free would shift.)

I'm in complete agreement that copyright should not be eliminated; I can't think of a setup to replace it that would result in as much open creativity and ability to reward artists & scientists for their efforts. I can't think of anything better. I can't think of anything as good.

We are in agreement on this. I hope you don't think I misunderstand that. I reply to your points because you reply to mine and this is what discussion is all about.

With luck some others who may not agree have been reading our discussion and it may influence their position. If not, that is ok too.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

I can think of a few ways to provide some payment, and a few ways that could provide rewards to artists who currently aren't supported, and I trust that, sans copyright, people would come up with more methods.

All these methods are available now. If anyone wishes to try any other alternative method as well, they are free to do so with or without copyright. The telling fact is that currently no alternative method to paying for the content has been shown to provide anywhere near the same rewards. In fact just about every other method tried so far has been shown to provide substantially less rewards. So much so that I know of no author that has decided to completely forgo payment in exchange for content in preference to some other method of compensation.(not counting those who write for the love of writing only and do not care if they receive any compensation to begin with)

At best there are authors who are willing to forgo payment in exchange for content in the hope and expectation that future payment in exchange for content will be larger and thus act as compensation for the prior efforts that went without compenstation.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

The most good I could imagine coming out of the removal of copyright law is its reinstatement with shorter terms, better detail about what's covered, and more specific fair use-esque exceptions.

Agreed. However then it wouldn't really be the abolition of copyright but rather a reworking of it.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

All these methods are available now. If anyone wishes to try any other alternative method as well, they are free to do so with or without copyright. The telling fact is that currently no alternative method to paying for the content has been shown to provide anywhere near the same rewards.

Currently, those methods are working within the constraints of copyright. They haven't been tried in a (digital) marketplace that allows free widespread copying. (There have been past markets with no copyright laws; in all of them, the resources for copying were expensive enough to keep unauthorized copies to a small impact.)

There are no book clubs today focused around tip jars for favorite authors. No publishing houses selling signed postcards with bookcover pictures for $3 each (at least, not as a standard item). No websites of author consortiums selling subscriptions for $10/month, for first legit access to chapters posted twice a week, and the opportunity to download the whole thing as an ebook for an additional $10, available for two weeks after the final chapter's been posted, until the story goes back into the archives and will return next year.

Those are non-viable business arrangements right now; they can't compete with the convenience of "Download ebook forever for $8." However, there are people who'd be happy for paid subscriptions to favorite authors' websites, and moreso if they knew their money was directly supporting the author. There are people who'd happily buy signatures & other memorabilia. People who'd pay for the right to join a chatroom with an author.

We can't know if those, and whatever other methods show up, would be enough to support authors, because those methods aren't economically sound right now; copyright is a much simpler way for authors to make money from their work. And trucks are much more efficient and simple ways to deliver mail than on horseback--but if the internal combustion engine were outlawed tomorrow, we'd still find a way to deliver messages & packages to each other, even though horses probably wouldn't be a major factor in it.

[V.W. Singer]

Based on the OP's and some other's arguments, why should we pay for any kind labour? Everyone should work for free. After all there are people who grow vegetables and fruits for free, and build furniture for free, and repair cars for free. So why pay anyone?

Why are authors and composers the only ones not allowed to own their creations? The same principle could apply to any product. I'm sure the poor would be greatly aided by the ability to take anything they liked.

How would this work? That's not my problem. People will find a way. Yes, a couple of billion people might die first, but you always have to sacrifice to bring in a new and superior way of living. Eggs, omelets.

[carld]

Honestly, if they can't compete with "Download ebook forever for $8," how are these alternate methods going to compete with "Download ebook forever for nothing?"

[tompe]

Originally Posted by carld

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?

The misleading thing is that you assume that it is the same artists that should make an income. Things change. For some artists this will be good for and for some it will be bad. So asking the question in a way that assume that exactly the same artists have to continue to earn the same amount of money is asking the wrong question.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by V.W. Singer

Based on the OP's and some other's arguments, why should we pay for any kind labour? Everyone should work for free. After all there are people who grow vegetables and fruits for free, and build furniture for free, and repair cars for free. So why pay anyone?

Why are authors and composers the only ones not allowed to own their creations? The same principle could apply to any product. I'm sure the poor would be greatly aided by the ability to take anything they liked.

Of course authors own what they are creating. They just do not own the copies of it. As is the case for all labour. If you build a furniture you might own that. But you do not own all the copies of it.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by tompe

The misleading thing is that you assume that it is the same artists that should make an income. Things change. For some artists this will be good for and for some it will be bad. So asking the question in a way that assume that exactly the same artists have to continue to earn the same amount of money is asking the wrong question.

The exact same artists DO have to continue earning the same anount of money. If you have any hope of convincing enough people that the abolition of copyright is a good enough idea to effect a wholesale paradigm change, that is.

So the question is very valid.

[Spectrum]

copyright to some means right to copy!
If copyright is eliminated we will be blessed - 80% (choose your own percent) of copyrighted material is C-R-A-P.