There is no copyright

[Leyor]

Originally Posted by carld

In what way? We've already seen that donation buttons don't work. Without copyright we're back to relying on rich patrons supporting artists, and mostly keeping that art for themselves.

No we're not. Artists have supported themselves for hundreds of years without either patron or copyright. It's an interesting thing that mass producing your work cheaply and competing with rampant copying, actually paved the way for independently successfull authors. It's also interesting that copyright reduced the average income of authors.

I'm not saying that abolishing copyright will be good or bad for the market today, I am not saying that digital medias hasn't made it even easier to duplicate information. But in spite of being really cheap to get a print run up with cheap mass produced pfennig paperbacks, publishers used to be able to survive despite copyist, and allow both themselves and authors to earn a good living.

Saying the patron system is the alternative to Copyright is really bad conjecture.
It's like a false syllogism:

In the past before copyright, authors had to rely on patrons.
Therefore if copyright is abolished, authors will have to rely on patrons.

Conveniently forgetting the big time period inbetween.

[carld]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Except that they do work, how much money do you need anyway?

They don't work according to writers who've posted on this forum.

[Leyor]

Originally Posted by carld

They don't work according to writers who've posted on this forum.

I actually don't think a donation system works either, unless its integrated in some sort of eco system. In terms of our social conscience, starving author ranks alot below starving children and natural disasters.

I do believe that people will support products they really believe in given an incentive though. All my PC games are legally bought, even though I could download a copy just as easy. Mostly because I really want those companies to continue producing great games for my pc.

[carld]

Originally Posted by Leyor

I think your very wrong here, I'd like to point to another thread for an example:
https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=133249
This is just one example and you can make up all kind of arguments of why this doesn't work, or shouldn't work or can't work. The possibilities are out there though for those being creative.

And as I posted in that thread, I think that's a unique case. That book is really being sold as an object (as someone else said). It's a very giftable picture book. As such it's basically immune to piracy. That's not at all the case for text works, music and movies.

Originally Posted by Leyor

Alot of industries are faced with similar problems, and its nothing new. In Germany before copyright, publishers faced an extreme amount of plagiarism(sp?), it was easy and cheap to produce big runs of cheap paper copies, they dealt with that by outcompeting them, making different runs and editions.

They out competed their rivals by physically producing cheaper books. That simply doesn't apply in a non-copyright, digital world where most any book, movie or piece of music can be instantly copied and distributed to millions of people within hours of being released.

Originally Posted by Leyor

Customers have different needs, most don't have the need for just a digital copy of a book to read on their ereader or pc. In our market driven society you really don't believe that the industry will come up with ways to make money off this?

Money off of what though? The only thing that won't be immediately be copied and distributed are books that fall into the same category as the one you linked to, books that work as objects first. Non-picture books, movies and music will be on torrents immediately, all freely and legally available for anyone who wants a copy. How is that remotely sustainable for the content creation industry?

Originally Posted by Leyor

To quote someone: "If you can reach people, you can sell them shit". It's just a question of tailoring it to the right demographic, and a good solid fanbase is a great audience.

But who is going to pay for that content?

Originally Posted by Leyor

I think my main objection is, that your argument is the same argument that comes up everytime a market shifts. It's not practical, there's noone going to buy it if you can get it for free/cheap/better/more pink. I am not saying it isn't valid points, but right now we actually have people buying a product they can get similar for free, due to the legality, and a perception of quality. (Else they'd just get free selfpublished books, there's enough out there to last everyone here in this forum a lfietime).

We're not talking about a market shift here, we're talking about market destruction. I've yet to see any practical example of how someone, a writer let's say, is going to make money writing when anything they produce is immediately available legally, and for free, to anyone who wants a copy. The same goes for movies and music. Why would I buy a movie theater ticket, or a music CD, or a DVD, when I can legally get it off the net for nothing?

[HansTWN]

Only ad supported content or government sponsored writers would survive. This world sounds like it is designed and custom made for Google.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by carld

We're not talking about a market shift here, we're talking about market destruction. I've yet to see any practical example of how someone, a writer let's say, is going to make money writing when anything they produce is immediately available legally, and for free, to anyone who wants a copy. The same goes for movies and music. Why would I buy a movie theater ticket, or a music CD, or a DVD, when I can legally get it off the net for nothing?

Movie theatre ticket: Performance experience--For those who want to watch it on a big screen, with a huge crowd. A lot of people don't want that; they would no longer have any reason to go to theatres. But if the theatres don't have to pay licensing fees, they could offer a much broader range of movies to those who do like theatre settings. Theatres, like stadiums, will do *fine* if we abolish copyright.

CD/DVD: Convenience--For those who want the special artwork that comes with it. Or those on vacation and want that particular mix, now, for the drive; they don't want to go back to the hotel and scrounge up all the songs and hope they're recorded at low compression & with the same sound levels. These won't sell nearly as well; album stores may pretty much vanish. Some enterprising people will probably manage to set up a service for custom album mixes made on the spot while you wait. Again, paying for convenience, and a bit of tech skills.

Selling written content options:
1) Patron, individual or group (private book club): Content is only released to the patron, for a fairly high price.

2) Pay first, read later: content is posted in chapters; payment level for next chapter must be reached before next chapter is posted. Possibly, chapters are only available for a few weeks unless you buy insider access. Yes, the book will be around on other sites, but you'll have to go find it--pay for the convenience of reading what you know is the correct version at the author's site.

3) Government sponsorship: authors & artists who show a certain level of skill/popularity are given a stipend. (Yes, this is subject to abuse in zillions of ways. However it is possible for many artists to make a living this way. And it's possibly no less fair than the traditional publishing route that turns away authors for not writing vampire romance novels.)

4) Buying the official version gets bonuses: access to the official publication site, forums with author participation, etc. Paying in advance gets access to the ARC, or author's notes. And so on.

None of those are perfect. None of those would allow the current huge author's market to continue. Some combination of those and methods I haven't thought of could eventually work--because we *want* new books, and we will figure out how to pay authors to make them.

I suspect that what we'd figure out is some law that works very similarly to copyright. It's got big problems, but the reason we haven't gotten rid of it is that nobody's come up with anything better. I'm not saying the options I came up with are better--just at least somewhat plausible. If copyright were abolished by UN fiat for the purpose of World Peace (because, I dunno, we need total free information exchange to eliminate the zombie hordes or something), we'd find some other system.

[Leyor]

They out competed their rivals by physically producing cheaper books.

Actually they didn't, they outcompeted their rivals by tailoring to the needs of the demographic. Big luxurious leatherbound editions to the wealthy, cheap paperbacks to the common workers.

I think your both right and wrong in the example of the picture book. Right in that it's being sold as a luxury object, being a picture book which makes it emminently more suitable for just this kind of thing.

Wrong in that it's immune to piracy, people are copying cartoons left and right. Also, selling a copy of the book as luxury goods is not the only deriviative they are getting from it.

I think we're talking a bit past each other here, so let me end this by saying:

There's already a thriving content creating community giving away their works for free, in the hopes of getting a broad fanbase. Be it books, music, services or programs.

People can already get (in some cases) superior products for free of ebooks etc. easily downloadable in a few clicks.

Really all thats making people pay currently, is because they either want a physical product (an object) that you can tailor and compete with other industries copying or because they believe in contributing to the authors/industry or finally for ease of use, getting all ebooks from one single bookstore. These are the same things you'd tap into, to do well in a market without copyright.

Btw just to clarify my position, I am probably not for an abolishment of copyright due to adverse effects on industries with a high cost initial research investment (pharmaceuticals for ex.). But I think at the moment that copyright acts like a stopgab slowing down the development of creative industries market models.

I think alternative models work, I think they might actually be more lucrative for the individual authors and less lucrative for the publishing industry, which is fine with me. Thats just speculation though. However in my experience, whenever there is a need, people always find a way to make money on it.

[Leyor]

Sigh, Elfwreck just said it so much better than I could

[carld]

Originally Posted by Leyor

Sigh, Elfwreck just said it so much better than I could

Maybe, but I pretty much completely disagree with everything he said.

[elcreative]

From my point of view, the main benefit of copyright is that it does allow authors to make a living from their writing - the more successful ones full time, less successful part time supported by part time work of another nature and the rest more or less as hobby with some financial benefit - it means I have to wait for a shorter time to get a new book from my favoured authors... turn it all free/hobbyist and everybody can get everything but by having to earn a crust as well then the author will produce less...

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by carld

They don't work according to writers who've posted on this forum.

Which means very little since we can't extrapolate to writers at large, and there have been a few writers on this forum who have said the donation button has resulted in donations, which means that it has worked. To think otherwise would be illogical.

[carld]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Which means very little since we can't extrapolate to writers at large, and there have been a few writers on this forum who have said the donation button has resulted in donations, which means that it has worked. To think otherwise would be illogical.

You're redefining "work" and playing word games. I've yet to run into any author who ever got much out of a donation button. You can claim that since at least one author got one donation they "work" but you know full well that's not what we're talking about here.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by stonetools

And a hell of a lot more after copyright was established.Copyright isn't a perfect way to foster arts and scientific innovation, but its better than any other way we know.

Copyright has nearly nothing to do with scientific innovation. So what are you talking about? Are you confusing copyright and patents?

[kapsi]

10 years of copyrights and patents should be okay. Author could pay to extend the time.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by carld

You're redefining "work" and playing word games. I've yet to run into any author who ever got much out of a donation button. You can claim that since at least one author got one donation they "work" but you know full well that's not what we're talking about here.

Then what are we talking about? Should writing a book full time for 6 months give 25,000 dollars in return? Something like that?

If your work motivates someone enough to contribute monetarily to your work, then I believe that the donation method has worked as intended. It might not work as much as you would have liked it to work but it still did work. Maybe we should think about the workings of the donation method in order to increase its working.