To play devil's advocate, why should people continue to be compensated for work they did long ago? It's normal today, but it wasn't always that way, and it could be time to revisit that assumption. The amount and quality of works would change for sure, but there's nothing I know if that says there aren't other reasonable systems out there.
Especially in light of the fact that copyright is not fulfilling it's intended promise. Specifically that the government protects the work for a time, and in return the work goes into the public domain after a reasonable amount of time in order to enrich society as a whole.
Interestingly enough we have a great example of limited copyright protections for musicians in China that are still fabulously wealthy and successful. Their wealth is generated through performing/concerts, advertising, etc while their music is freely available for streaming/download.
Should we really be incentivizing making music as a career? And besides, I don't think the bulk of music is being created by people being compensated for it.
I do support some form of copyright - e.g. if you earn money based on my work, you should compensate me accordingly - but not for private, non-commercial use.
There's an overlooked assumption, that art should be a commercial product sold in the marketplace. Maybe some things shouldn't or don't need to be sold in the marketplace. Maybe art should be more like free software (or just be free - let's not parochially limit ourselves to software analogies).
Certainly for 'purposes' or aspects of art - as enlightenment, enrichment, the pinnacle of culture and civilization - free distribution would be better, spreading its benefits more widely. Also, like free-as-in-speech software (sorry), each work of art is part of the creative process for the next one; it can be reused, modified, extracted, etc, so free art would be much better in that respect too.
I understand that artists want to eat and have roofs over their heads. I want a pony. Seriously, perhaps there are other ways to accomplish that. UBI?
> Seriously, perhaps there are other ways to accomplish that.
Yet another hidden assumption right there: that art must (or should) come from full-time professional artists (as opposed to hobbyists and/or part-timers).
I can't think of any reason why music copyright should ever expire. Music is (1) purely the product of creation (i.e. you're not just taking ownership of something like land that's naturally occurring); and (2) completely non-rival (there are an infinite number of original songs for people to create). I don't see why rights in something like that shouldn't be perpetual. Why should anyone else ever acquire rights to something that's purely the product of your mind?
That's an interesting perspective, maybe this response will help.
It's tempting to think of copyright in terms of ownership. I wrote the song, so I own it, and anyone else who uses it is violating my ownership in some way. But that's incorrect. Copyright is about control. The holder of copyright is granted a certain amount of legal control over everyone else's actions. I can prevent Jack from selling a copy of my song. I can prevent Jill from performing my song live. They no longer have rights they used to have.
Of course there is no "natural" basis for this concept, unlike ownership of physical goods. It was invented merely as an economic tool to incentivize production. Legally, it's purely a fiction of government. If Jill moved to another country and performed my song, I might have no way to stop her. I'd probably never even find out. So how could I have some fundamental right to stop her from singing what she wants to sing?
Ethically, I would turn your question around: Why do I get to control other people's actions that don't affect me? Why should I be able to sell that control or hand it down to my heirs? It's not clear what that argument could be.
The problem is that music has no inherent scarcity or exclusivity. Because there's no natural limit to the supply of copies, the marginal cost goes to zero.
To create a viable market, the entire rest of the country/world has to agree to inconvenience itself, simulating a scarcity by saying 'you're the only one who can legally make copies.'
So it's more a matter of hassling everyone else for the benefit of a relatively small group of creators. This is something that can be seen as a value-maximization problem.
How much extra music do we, as a society, get to enjoy by adding another N years to copyright? And what does that cost us in enforcement, licensing, and reduced ability to respin old work?
There are certainly not an infinite number of original songs. There have already been lawsuits where songs that might have legitimately been independent creations were litigated for being too similar.
lucasmullens|7 years ago
Bjartr|7 years ago
Especially in light of the fact that copyright is not fulfilling it's intended promise. Specifically that the government protects the work for a time, and in return the work goes into the public domain after a reasonable amount of time in order to enrich society as a whole.
CuriousSkeptic|7 years ago
I’m pretty sure the notion would sound ridiculous in a world without copyright. Such a world would look very different from ours.
But even if “fair compensation” was the goal. Why then not stipulate that in the law? Whay grant exclusive control of copying to anyone.
Salgat|7 years ago
dgzl|7 years ago
NeedMoreTea|7 years ago
moetech|7 years ago
tomp|7 years ago
forapurpose|7 years ago
Certainly for 'purposes' or aspects of art - as enlightenment, enrichment, the pinnacle of culture and civilization - free distribution would be better, spreading its benefits more widely. Also, like free-as-in-speech software (sorry), each work of art is part of the creative process for the next one; it can be reused, modified, extracted, etc, so free art would be much better in that respect too.
I understand that artists want to eat and have roofs over their heads. I want a pony. Seriously, perhaps there are other ways to accomplish that. UBI?
mmt|7 years ago
Yet another hidden assumption right there: that art must (or should) come from full-time professional artists (as opposed to hobbyists and/or part-timers).
rayiner|7 years ago
bo1024|7 years ago
It's tempting to think of copyright in terms of ownership. I wrote the song, so I own it, and anyone else who uses it is violating my ownership in some way. But that's incorrect. Copyright is about control. The holder of copyright is granted a certain amount of legal control over everyone else's actions. I can prevent Jack from selling a copy of my song. I can prevent Jill from performing my song live. They no longer have rights they used to have.
Of course there is no "natural" basis for this concept, unlike ownership of physical goods. It was invented merely as an economic tool to incentivize production. Legally, it's purely a fiction of government. If Jill moved to another country and performed my song, I might have no way to stop her. I'd probably never even find out. So how could I have some fundamental right to stop her from singing what she wants to sing?
Ethically, I would turn your question around: Why do I get to control other people's actions that don't affect me? Why should I be able to sell that control or hand it down to my heirs? It's not clear what that argument could be.
hakfoo|7 years ago
To create a viable market, the entire rest of the country/world has to agree to inconvenience itself, simulating a scarcity by saying 'you're the only one who can legally make copies.'
So it's more a matter of hassling everyone else for the benefit of a relatively small group of creators. This is something that can be seen as a value-maximization problem.
How much extra music do we, as a society, get to enjoy by adding another N years to copyright? And what does that cost us in enforcement, licensing, and reduced ability to respin old work?
pishpash|7 years ago
unknown|7 years ago
[deleted]
cocacola1|7 years ago
LocalH|7 years ago
Why do you reject the notion of the public domain?
tunesmith|7 years ago