I really wish we ditched the name "copyright" altogether because of its unfortunate implications. It's not actually a right - it's a privilege. The system is entirely artificial and wouldn't exist without active social and legal enforcement. And if the privilege is abused in ways that don't benefit society, then it can and should be curtailed or even revoked.
Personally I find the term "intellectual property" to be more messed up. It isn't property, it's a government granted monopoly on reproduction and distribution.
Calling it property allows for this bizarre concept of a form of "theft" that still leaves you with the thing "stolen" from you.
Property on anything beyond that which you're immediately using or occupying is a monopoly granted by social convention (from which laws are then derived). As Jefferson said,
"It is a moot question whether the origin of any kind of property is derived from nature at all... It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance. By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common is the property for the moment of him who occupies it; but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it. Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society."
So in that sense I don't think it's an altogether misleading analogy, although of course the ability to copy without taking makes it very different from tangible property. But both are ultimately social conventions, and both exist supposedly for the common good. If that common good cannot be demonstrated, and even moreso if there's demonstrable harm, the conventions can change.
> Personally I find the term "intellectual property" to be more messed up. It isn't property, it's a government granted monopoly...
So, in other words, it's property.
There's nothing that guarantees a particular lump of atoms are "yours" besides a government-granted monopoly to control that lump. The atoms don't care.
How about calling it Copyrent? Isn't iut more descriptive of what it actually is, while "right" makes it more sympathetic to the liberties and freedoms they're actually reigning in.
> It's not actually a right - it's a privilege. The system is entirely artificial and wouldn't exist without active social and legal enforcement. And if the privilege is abused in ways that don't benefit society, then it can and should be curtailed or even revoked.
Personally, I think copyright itself is a completely unnecessary concept in the information age.
The original idea was to promote creative works by authors by providing a limited term right to be the sole publisher of a work. This was important in the days where it actually cost money to publish and distribute things, as it ensured you wouldn't eat the cost of that only to have someone else make all the money by doing it cheaper.
Thing is, it doesn't cost money to publish and distribute anything anymore. I think the large number of free and fan works that exist are proof enough that creativity need not be incentivized by money, and to the extent that we want to monetarily reward works we find meaningful, there are mechanisms like Patreon or Github sponsorship to do that.
Will the production quality suffer without large corporations spending ludicrous amounts of money? Yeah, probably. But I don't see how that's something worthy of preserving for all the bullshit that copyright inflicts on our culture.
I feel like we have a relatively strong copyright regime, lots of works being created, creators have trouble eating with the current regime, and they had trouble eating before it, and unless the next regime makes something like "feed creators" as its primary goal, they'll have trouble eating under that one too.
I agree that it would be great if creators get to eat. Right now though many people don't get to eat (enough) no matter what, many other people don't get to make use of creative work, and a small number of big players walk away with all the money.
IMO pretty much literally anything else would probably put us in a better situation. At this point after several decades of experience, I think even just outright abolishing copyright law could possibly actually be a net improvement (give or take). But surely it should be possible to come up with a better system by now!
How would abolishing copyright law not make everyone (but the content creator) basically the equivalent of a vampire AI corporation slurping up what they please? Why would anyone create when everyone instantly gets to use their hard work in any way they want? It's like abolishing all property rights.
I'm saying that even abolishing copyright law might be an improvement. I didn't imply that that was the best idea (definitely not). Preferably copyright should be replaced by something that better promotes the arts and sciences.
===
Even so: to respond to who would create even if copyright law would be abolished:
A lot of people create with the intent of letting everyone instantly get to use their hard work. This is actually rather common. Huge amounts of fan-art, original art, original fiction and original fiction get created every day. Scientific articles get written every day. Wikipedia gets written every day. Open source software gets written every day. And let's not start about AI art and AI text (which currently is all PD) . 90% of this all might be crap, but then 90% of everything is crap. There are definitely gems among the 10%, just like everywhere else. And due to the sheer volume: there are a lot of gems.
Much of this activity would still happen without copyright law. There is clearly sufficient incentive at least. Fun is a common incentive. Sharing back is a common incentive too. Advancing the course of science. Earning fame.
Or you can just earn money. People earn money this way. I earn money this way. In this kind of situation, you pay the bills by "making things that don't exist yet".
Current copyright law has actually often gotten in the way more than that it has helped, I feel. I can tell you stories if you like! This does differ a bit per field and profession, of course.
===
But really copyright law should be replaced:
If you actually want to earn money by depending on copyright law, I feel you're getting short-changed at the moment. AI will "steal" your style; youtube, spotify and amazon will pay you mere pennies, of which apple might will pinch a percentage, your publisher will pinch a percentage, and you get left with ... very little.
Copyright frankly isn't helping many people right now. I don't think anyone is happy. Unless you know a bevy of small creators now living in mansions in Beverly Hills? I'd love to hear of it!
> Unless you know a bevy of small creators now living in mansions in Beverly Hills?
Per a google search, it seems that mainly very famous actors, actresses, and generally people who've contributed significantly to our culture live in Beverly Hills. The google results are definitely biased towards celebrities, but Beverly Hills seems to be a very odd example to choose when trying to point out how copyright isn't helping creators. It's natural to expect some proportionality between a creator's audience and the profit the can make monetizing their work.
The story goes that many people in the creative professions earn very little or even can't make ends meet; thus mansions in Beverly Hills are only available to the few.
I've heard of the trope of the "starving artist", but mainly in the context of the art world Vincent Van Gogh and his contemporaries lived in. I do not have any data to corroborate it as a true representation of any significant population that exists in reality today.
Can you point to examples of any small creators who would be better off if they had no legal copyright over their works?
I think the site rules do imply you're not supposed to go for the straw man argument that ends a debate, but rather for the steel-man argument that stimulates further curious conversation.
So let's go for that then... :
People often build on each other's work. Can you imagine situations where people can take inspiration from each other a whole lot earlier, or are allowed to borrow ideas sooner and more often?
This does happen in eg. open source and open content. More traditionally, scientists also reference each other's papers. Sometimes there's also times like eg. when sampling first became popular: this lead to a period of creative bloom in music.
People can't copyright a style or a vibe or inspiration, so it's not steelmanning to jump from
* "Can you point to examples of any small creators who would be better off if they had no legal copyright over their works?"
to
* "People often build on each other's work. Can you imagine situations where people can take inspiration from each other a whole lot earlier, or are allowed to borrow ideas sooner and more often?",
it's just completely removing the concept of "copyright" from the question entirely and attempting to inject the false premise that "violating a creator's copyright is the same as sparking inspiration in someone else or citing a paper" (which is, itself, a straw man).
Your points are made from a very idealistic place, but not rooted in reality. If I steal your car and tell you that I'm just "building on your work" to better my life, are you going to feel the same?
For ideals not rooted in reality, it seems to have paid the bills ok so far. (knock on wood).
Now, I have to take you seriously because the site rules say so. So I will! But I haven't heard a "stealing a car" analogy since last century, so I may be rusty. And maybe you're taking this in a novel direction? Let's see!
==
So a trick people did to me in the late '90s was to redefine "to steal" and not tell me. Sorry, but I do have to check for a minute!
In the case where you have allegedly stolen my car: can I walk out of the house next morning half asleep, put my keys in the ignition, and drive the <stolen> car to $customer without noticing much?
If so, then you have redefined "stealing" beyond my Overton Window and I shall be forced to make rude noises at you.
==
Otherwise: obviously I want to be able to drive my car. Depriving me of my property is bad. Where do you want to go with this?
edit/note: possibly I'm misremembering and people were still using the "you wouldn't steal a car" argument in the very early 2000s?
And yet, MPAA seriously made an advertising campaign that equated copying to stealing [1] . This obviously didn't go down well. (eg: [2] ). It sounded a bit like what you were saying, hence the odd response you got.
Of course in in reality, copying isn't stealing. If you could somehow copy my car, I'd still have my car, so you wouldn't be depriving me of anything.
In general, people collaborating and building and iterating on each other's work is normally considered a good thing. Originally copyright had fairly short terms to facilitate this, but over time the original aims of copyright seem to have drifted somewhat.
Anyway, I'm still left mostly guessing where you're trying to go with your 'If I steal your car and tell you that I'm just "building on your work" to better my life, are you going to feel the same?' comment. Could you elucidate?
The answer to your question depends on the field in question. Plenty of areas have no or little copyright protection and still have thriving creativity: cooking, fashion, comedy routines, etc. It can be a first mover advantage, social conventions, or other reasons.
Protecting specific jobs at the expense of society at large is just socialism with extra steps. Might as well admit that that's what you are doing and feed people directly without neutering our ability to share and advance our culture.
