You: I will steal this, consume it, reprint it as I see fit and you will earn nothing.
Yeah... I don't think your opinions are worth much.
Anything beyond that is not personal property, but a literal monopoly which impedes creativity, seeing the many, many, many sequels which are terrible often made to keep a studio's grasp on an IP. It happens so often those are often called "ashcan copy" or "rights-retention" films, which wouldn't happen if Copyright law expired as naturally as Patents do.
It used to be roughly on par with Patent expiration, but it's now almost either 100 years to almost 200.
The vast majority of stories do not make any money ever. Some do, but only briefly so. The true money makers should have no problem paying the fees.
Only very rare cases of authors who get discovered decades later would not be covered by this, and this is less likely to happen with the Internet. There are no publishing gatekeepers anymore.
It is difficult in the current climate to prevent industrial actors from cultivating genetic lines instantiated by Artists in Art. In a different future, the seperation between small and large-scale genetic agriculture would be recognised, and the abolition of copyright may proceed.
In a world where money is devalued, genetic lines and mental constituency will become even more powerful.
See: the mental constituency of sci-fi books in E. Musk's brain
> Authors and artists are not (and souldn't be) making Art for money.
Hmm...
> Author: I spent some years researching a topic to write a book about it.
Authors don't just make art.
What excuse do artists have?
Simple safeguards are already in practice in today's economy to prevent such circumstances.
Even in the particular case of novels, I would prefer to live in a world where some authors are making money than live in one with no novels at all.
> Even in the particular case of novels, I would prefer to live in a world where some authors are making money than live in one with no novels at all.
That's not the choice. Novels will be written regardless, and there are ways to make money that are not copyright-related: Substack and Patreon are doing more to fund small authors than the publishing industry as a whole, and people pay because they want to support the author, and to get early, exclusive access to the author's work. None of those authors are surviving and making money because someone can't copy their work and distribute it. Piracy is a fact, and that people give money to these authors in the presence of piracy shows that copyright is not necessary to support these artists.
I tend to agree with your sentiment but this line made me think you’re underestimating the degree to which the law stops the powerful from doing evil. They see the law as a hassle to be calculated against and if there is no legal friction to stealing and using others’ creations they just will.
So it’s not that Amazon would take your novel, short story, etc and redistribute it. It’s that they’d make a whole series of movies or TV series using your creations and give you nothing and have to give you nothing.
Copyright being eliminated is among my more “idealistically anarchistic” wishes I think but so long as we’re in a society as legalistic and with such an imbalance of power generally, copyright protects more than it hurts I think.
That said, I increasingly see writers making money directly from their audience not because the audience is not allowed to make a copy of their work, but because they treat the writers writing as a service and they want to get updates every week and so they subscribe. I think copyright was created for a less connected world where it was much more natural to print them in bulk and then sell copies.
Copyright does not guarantee you an audience. Nothing guarantees you an audience, authors know this, everyone who creates anything ought to know this?
Copyright just says that if you DO manage to create a work that truly connects with an audience, you're in a position to make money off it because it cannot be stolen from you.
What is so wrong with that?
Skill issue. This is common for low-barrier careers that look like anyone can do them, but only a minority break-even. Others include porn/Onlyfans, social media "influencers",and hordes of aspiring actors who flock to Los Angeles.
And what % of those do by selling, vs giving away their work for free (to get non-negligible attention) then getting their real money through donations, merch, etc.?
I don't think anyone has the right to take work I create, for free.
In the same way I have no right to walk into your house and use it for free.
In the same way you cannot expect me to turn up and work at your business for free.
I don't care what half delusional rubbish you come up with to justify your theft.
It's theft, you want to steal something you put zero effort into creating and use it as you see fit. No fuck you. If I want to give it away for free, that's my prerogative not your expectation, if I can monetise via merch or other means, that's my prerogative not your right.
Your analogy doesn’t fit because a house is physical, but “intellectual property” is digital. If we lived in the metaverse and I could just copy your house and live in it without affecting you, why should you care? Theft is bad because the victim no longer has the original.
On the basis it's digital.
I don't care if it's digital, I care if it took time and effort to create. If it did, it does not matter if it's digital or physical, it's theft.
So abolish copyright, and indies still make money from creating digital works - at least almost as much as they do now, but probably more, because it will further normalize the alternate incomes.
Copyright maybe used to help indies, but every copyright case I’ve heard anywhere in the last decade, the plaintiff is a publisher with more than enough revenue. Meanwhile, in many cases the defendant hasn’t actually infringed, but regardless suffers from the DMCA, C&D, or lawsuit. Copyright relies on wishful thinking to provide an illusion of helping small-time creators, in reality far more often it hurts them.
https://www.reddit.com/r/royalroad/comments/1uwyuf1/psa_stol...
Here is an example of the theft you endorse.
Please go tell those people they should be happy for someone else to steal their work and charge for it even after they've given it away for free.
It doesn't matter whether "few" people make a living from it. Copyright does not guarantee you an audience. Copyright going away would not guarantee you more of an audience.
The only thing it guarantees is that if you manage to write something that resonates with an audience you have the potential to earn a living from it. That is what you want to take away.
IMO the solution to protecting trademark is to ensure anyone who discovers a repackaged work (like those examples) also discovers the original author and their free version, so they know it’s a ripoff. It doesn’t require the finicky legal system.
So layoffs should be illegal?
Any creative person whose ego is not overinflated accepts the fact that no art emerges from a vacuum, that they themselves were inspired by others and their work, and that they should pay this forward to the coming generations.
For me, the worst aspect of long copyright is the de-facto ban on derived works. Work derivation is how civilization and culture came to be.
The authors I'm aware of making >$20k don't do any significant gating. That practice is only really common with people republishing through Amazon (which probably demands it).
This is exactly what copyright is.
I agree that you could work around this in a world without copyright (e.g. by watermarking content and blacklisting), but it would be difficult and make the whole profession less viable.
Mass distribution and payment becoming accessible/low overhead was an extremely helpful development for authors in my view, and removing copyright would have the opposite effect (but cutting it down even to several years would change surprisingly little).
It's your property. Do what you want with it. In a free society, the public isn't compelled to buy your books.
Blinded by corporate abuse, calls for removal of copyright law are often naive or ill-willed IMHO
I think copyright suppresses creation and does very little to support creators in general. It has enabled businesses to choose a few winning creators that reap the benefits of copyright. That kingmaker position allows them to dictate what is created.
For the last few decades the median income from a creative work has been nil.
I would much rather have universal basic income and no copyright.
Your point about making a living off of creative endeavors underscores this point: if copyright were doing its job the way it's supposed to, your first sentence wouldn't be a note alluding to how damn hard it is to make a living on writing. Somehow you're twisting that to be a feature, which I get, because there's no alternative story, but at the same time, let's be honest: copyright doesn't work well, and incurs huge costs for society.