Do you enjoy feature films? Video games? Television shows?
Hardly any of that content would exist at the quality level you are accustomed to, without copyright.
I say that as a producer of such content. If anyone could legally copy and distribute my work without my permission, I would not produce it, because there would be minimal financial incentive for me to do so.
The current level of such unauthorized distribution - by which I primarily refer to the republication of my work by others, in its entirety, for their own profit - is staggering. And that is with the existence of copyright law.
And it’s a huge disincentive from publishing more content. Both economically and because it’s demoralizing.
It’s also a huge waste of time, as in order to be able to pay my employees and myself, I have to dedicate time to combating infringement-as-a-business.
If copyright ceased to exist, I and nearly every other producer that I know, would find another line of work.
Fortunately, copyright ceasing to exist is unlikely to happen.
For starters, the wholesale abolition of copyright would violate the United States Constitution.
> Do you enjoy feature films? Video games? Television shows?
not really no, I like stand up comedy, music, indie films, art that people make because they feel compelled to make art, not because they've done the math on the best return-on-investment
My ideal funding model is kickstarteresque, raise X amount and then publish
I consider copyright contradictory to free speech, I can say whatever I want unless it's already been said? what?
> the wholesale abolition of copyright would violate the United States Constitution.
- Other forms of payment for creation rather than distributing copies
- Government grants
- UBI
Those are just the super obvious ones. Generally when something is considered valuable, society finds ways to pay for it. Not allowing copyright and patent parasites collect as much means there is more that can be spread to actual creators.
Or they could work on something else that is not as easily copied - there will always be others driven to create art.
That there are business models profiting from certain laws should not exclude those laws from being reconsidered. In a way, copyright is like pollution: externalizing the costs to everyone else for your own profit.
> Hardly any of that content would exist at the quality level you are accustomed to, without copyright.
How would you know? Yes these all require funding but the idea that we as a society can only fund big creative works by giving up everyones right to freely share and enjoy them is absurd. Copyright is an effective(ish) way of funding things in a world built around copyright but it is not the only one and there is no reason to believe that there could not be better ones in a world without copyright.
It's a sad world we live in when creators are upset that their creation is shared.
Let's also not forget that the need to commercialize creative content using copyright can also negatively influence those works themselves as what is profitable under this scheme is not neccesarily what is best.
> It’s also a huge waste of time, as in order to be able to pay my employees and myself, I have to dedicate time to combating infringement-as-a-business.
Good news: without copyright you would not have to spend any time to combat infringement since there would be no infringement.
> For starters, the wholesale abolition of copyright would violate the United States Constitution.
Does it? I'm certainly not an expert of the matter but AFAII the constitution only ALLOWS the government to create laws like copyright but does not require it.
>It's a sad world we live in when creators are upset that their creation is shared.
I don't think that is a fair description of what I have a problem with.
>Let's also not forget that the need to commercialize creative content using copyright can also negatively influence those works themselves as what is profitable under this scheme is not neccesarily what is best.
This is a huge problem, though it's not really related to copyright.
I think a more accurate statement, using your words, would be something like:
"Let's also not forget that the commercialization of creative content can also negatively influence those works themselves as what is profitable under this scheme is not necessarily what is best."
HUGE problem.
The content you see on YouTube today is determined, in large part, by what advertisers are and are not willing to have their brands associated with.
Huge, huge, problem. Particularly since viewers are typically unaware of it.
> Does it? I'm certainly not an expert of the matter but AFAII the constitution only ALLOWS the government to create laws like copyright but does not require it.
I believe that it does. Abolishing copyright would be a 'taking' of intellectual property, and would violate the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Hardly any of that content would exist at the quality level you are accustomed to, without copyright.
I say that as a producer of such content. If anyone could legally copy and distribute my work without my permission, I would not produce it, because there would be minimal financial incentive for me to do so.
The current level of such unauthorized distribution - by which I primarily refer to the republication of my work by others, in its entirety, for their own profit - is staggering. And that is with the existence of copyright law.
And it’s a huge disincentive from publishing more content. Both economically and because it’s demoralizing.
It’s also a huge waste of time, as in order to be able to pay my employees and myself, I have to dedicate time to combating infringement-as-a-business.
If copyright ceased to exist, I and nearly every other producer that I know, would find another line of work.
Fortunately, copyright ceasing to exist is unlikely to happen.
For starters, the wholesale abolition of copyright would violate the United States Constitution.