
The Surprising History of Copyright and the Promise of a Post-Copyright World - walterbell
http://questioncopyright.org/promise
======
mtgx
Innovation/progress and restrictions such as copyright and patents do seem to
be inversely correlated for the most part. It's often the case that when
something is patented, others in the industry would rather completely avoid
that technology until the patent expires (unless they think they can clone it
without getting into legal trouble, which then defeats the point of a patent
anyway).

Something similar happens with books too, where books are only popular for
about 10 years at most if they are still under copyright, but those that are
in the public domain are popular for decades or more.

Maybe there _should_ be a balance, but what we have now in regards to both
patents and copyright is likely not it, in the sense that copyright terms need
to be greatly reduced, their impact somewhat more limited (some DMCA stuff is
really abusive), and patents need to be accepted much less often and for
actual inventions rather than obvious stuff that anyone could've invented.

~~~
anigbrowl
_Something similar happens with books too, where books are only popular for
about 10 years at most if they are still under copyright, but those that are
in the public domain are popular for decades or more._

Have you ever been in a second-hand bookstore? The only way I can make sense
of your comment is if I assume you don't read a lot of books.

------
api
Can someone explain without using "magic happens here" arguments how an
author, musician, etc. would build a portfolio of assets from which they could
attain any measure of financial security in this world? Working for tips is
not a valid answer.

Writers would have it even worse than musicians, since at least musicians can
tour. When was the last time you attended a live reading of a novel?

I am not arguing that copyright is perfect as is, but so far I see nothing
better that allows artists to actually eat. In a post copyright world, big
capital would still own brands, distribution channels, networks, etc. It would
actually be great for them: they could now monetize artists work any way they
wanted without paying the artist anything. Google, Apple, Amazon, etc. would
be big winners.

This stuff is yet another hard right wing labor busting idea masquerading as
something liberal and progressive.

~~~
Glyptodon
"Tips," as you seem to classify everything from Kickstarter to Patronage to
Patreon, and fan interaction are the most reasonable means by which an artist
might derive a living.

Artists who can't derive a living by these means should look into alternate
means of making a living. Success as an artist is not an entitlement. Creative
people who make creative works will succeed in proportion to their ability to
be valued by society or a subset of it, not because society can correctly
identify any objective or intrinsic value in any particular creative work.

It's also not comparable to the "wealthy engineers" you malign. If engineers
worked under the same terms as modern copyright never a road or bridge or
factory would be built because the next hundred years of paying royalties to
all the engineers on top of construction costs would make it impossible to
build anything.

Frankly, most engineers give up the rights to their creative works in order to
be employed at all and recognize that they can't expect to make a living for
their entire life just by designing one awesome bridge or skyscraper.

~~~
sosborn
> Success as an artist is not an entitlement.

Neither is unlimited access to a person's artistic creation.

~~~
Nadya
Which contributes to their success through free marketing and word-of-mouth.
"Who are you listening to?" is a common question people ask when they hear
music they like that someone else is listening to. Which, if they hadn't
pirated that persons music they might not be listening to and the answer would
be a different artist.

From an economic sense I've never understood trying to prevent piracy. I can
understand _not encouraging it_ or even _encouraging buying the product_ but
not acting like piracy is a heinous crime that robs them.

My favorite example is illegal anime fansubs that open up an entire foreign
market to something they otherwise would not participate in. From purchasing
merchandise (figurines, dakimakuras, DVD's, soundtracks, etc.) to telling
their friends about the anime. It's business that these studios would
otherwise not get and so many fansub groups are tolerated _or even hired as
official translators_ for studios.

This sort of black/white standpoints on piracy do more harm to both sides in
many cases...people shooting themselves in the foot because they don't
understand that potentially free marketing brings in more money than the
imaginary "lost sale" (who says the person who pirated would even buy your
product to begin with?)

~~~
anigbrowl
_From purchasing merchandise (figurines, dakimakuras, DVD 's, soundtracks,
etc.) to telling their friends about the anime._

What you're missing is that those things only exist for purchase because
someone invested capital in their production, and you only learn about the
original media because money was spent on marketing in its home territory.

If all you have is the IP and no capital, which is the position that most
authors are in, then you can't easily cash in on the merchandising
possibilities or purchase the marketing resources to focus public attention on
your product at scale.

 _people shooting themselves in the foot because they don 't understand that
potentially free marketing brings in more money than the imaginary "lost
sale"_

Have you ever tried to sell a creative product? Maybe you should. The reality
is that 'potentially free marketing' is a _terrible_ bootstrap strategy for
many creative products. If your only marketing option is to give it away free
then the signal you are sending to the market is that 'this work has no value'
and so nobody is inclined to pay for it. Piracy across market boundaries (like
anime) only works because there is _already_ a perception of value for the
product - you want something that people in another market can easily buy but
which you can't. They can easily buy it because someone invested in
distribution and marketing.

Look, if you sat down, learned to draw, and made your own anime book and put
it up on the internet for free without caring about copyright, do you think
money just comes rolling in? It won't, even if it's good and popular. If you
ignore copyright that someone else who does have capital sitting idle will
just start producing and selling merchandise and _they won 't give you any of
the money._

~~~
Nadya
_> What you're missing is that those things only exist for purchase because
someone invested capital in their production_

True. Most of the time at least. This is assuming it isn't some indie project,
but for the most part I'll agree and say it is true.

 _> you only learn about the original media because money was spent on
marketing in its home territory._

I hate to enter a semantic debate but I don't consider announcements to be
marketing, although I can understand how one could interpret them as such.

People learn about the original media through the fansub groups who learn
about the product through announcements of upcoming works from the studios
and/or the native TV rippers (I forget their actual name). Only a small, niche
market of foreigners who happen to also speak Japanese hear about it from
marketing in the home territory. There are fangroups who, at the start of each
season, compile the upcoming works from each studio. That is all the marketing
that most of the pirating consumers get - and none of it is from marketing the
product in Japan.

 _> If all you have is the IP and no capital, which is the position that most
authors are in, then you can't easily cash in on the merchandising
possibilities or purchase the marketing resources to focus public attention on
your product at scale._

Which is why free advertisement from pirates is a benefit. Which is part of
what I'm getting at...then there's the entire doujinshi market which runs
counter to this claim. Many doujinshi artists become very popular because of a
single sale that is then scanned and distributed to people who then pirate the
work. The artist can gain a lot of popularity through this pirating of their
work, which results in more sales in the future.

 _> Have you ever tried to sell a creative product? Maybe you should._

I have.

 _> The reality is that 'potentially free marketing' is a terrible bootstrap
strategy for many creative products._

I already replied to this. _> I can understand not encouraging it or even
encouraging buying the product but not acting like piracy is a heinous crime
that robs them._

 _> If your only marketing option is to give it away free _

Nowhere did I say that.

 _> Look, if you sat down, learned to draw, and made your own anime book and
put it up on the internet for free without caring about copyright, do you
think money just comes rolling in? It won't, even if it's good and popular._

Ignoring your bad assumptions, do you think an artist would make money if
their initial marketing, at some level, wasn't free? How many artists would
make sales without a portfolio or free display of their work? How many
musicians would get signed to a label without an EP?

~~~
sosborn
I don't totally disagree with much of what you say, but in the case of anime,
it is important to remember that the works that are highly successful in Japan
are produced solely on the premise they will rake in cash for the IP owner.
The income they get from non-domestic consumers is a drop in the bucket. Take
away that incentive and there is a good chance that overall quantity and
quality of content would decline.

~~~
Nadya
Perhaps I should have used manga/doujinshi as my example as it doesn't require
an entire production studio to create. Off the top of my head I can only think
of 1 or 2 quality anime doujinshi that were subbed - making it a worse example
for "for-free artists". Many doujinshi will hand out free copies of their
manga though when starting out, to gain popularity. Even if it is initially a
loss for them.

For anime, it's produced for-profit, that's correct, but piracy arguably
_helps_ their for-profit motives more than it harms them. If they spent a
bunch of money, time, and effort preventing all piracy of their IP - they'd
lose out on countless international sales of merchandise... and for what
exactly? Because they own the IP? That's nice. As long as it's profitable for
them, why should they care? This is why Comiket is tolerated.

It's costly to sub an anime for a foreign release where it isn't guaranteed to
do as well as it did in Japan. Often times unpopular anime from Japan is very
popular overseas, so it can be difficult even choosing what to release
overseas. They're essentially getting free labor from fansub groups which
results in sales they would have had to pay for (by releasing their own
sub/dub). That's a win-win for the studio.

This is less applicable to Hollywood movies that lack merchandise deals (e.g.
anything that isn't superhero related) and music. I'm aware of that, but each
form of media has its own arguments.

Over 1/2 of my music library was purchased _only_ because I originally heard
of the artist because a friend pirated their music or I was listening to their
music _for free_ (I use AdBlock, so they aren't making money off ads) on
YouTube. I would not have discovered the artist or purchased their music
without this method of discovery, which is reliant on my friends or other
people pirating their music and "broadcasting it" to the world.

So it becomes an issue of "if 1 pirate results in greater than or equal to 2
sales, it is profitable to let the pirate pirate" and measuring (and
quantifying) the pirates "free marketing" aspect. While I can personally
quantify which items my friends have pirated and determine whether it was, in
the end, profitable for the company to let them pirate or not.

The company has no way of measuring what sales of their sales occurred because
of pirates. They only know that piracy means they "lost a sale"; which might
not have happened even if piracy wasn't an option. This is where the problem
lies and opinions differ.

I'm of the opinion that the free publicity piracy provides outweighs the lost
sales that occur from piracy, therefore tolerating, _but not promoting_ ,
piracy is an overall net gain.

This argument is different than one I would use for a painter or photographer.
Where stealing is a lot more harmful to the artist, especially since
attribution is almost never given for stolen works. In this form of media,
piracy _steals_ recognition and publicity rather than _giving it_. That's
actively harmful and is more easily provable that it harms the artist.

------
ThomPete
Copyrights main natural purpose is to make sure that no other than the owner
can make money from the IP.

It is not made to ensure that you will in fact make money from selling it or
that others have to pay to listen/enjoy it.

------
williamcotton
If we get rid of copyright, does that mean that if I then write a book, that
someone else can print and sell copies and can keep all the profits?

How is that even remotely fair?

~~~
kiba
Yup.

Same thing happens to open source software. Yet, programmers write open source
software, and some even make money from open source software, however
indirectly.

~~~
hk__2
Yep. All my programs are under the MIT licence, which allows you to use them
in your own programs, sell them, and keep all the profits for you.

~~~
cwp
Mine too. And companies have done that. It's great.

------
williamcotton
I am a writer, a songwriter in fact, and I have definitely benefitted from
copyright.

In the past I've sold parts of my rights to a publisher, in exchange for cash,
who then was incentivized to go out and licenses some songs for obscure
commercial purposes. It made both of the publisher and myself some money.

It's kind of a fantastic way of doing business. Publishers work as speculative
investors and help to spread the risk of creating intellectual property. It
only works if we treat the "song" as the item of property, and not "me". I
can't be bought and sold on a marketplace, rather my songs are.

In the time of patronage, it wasn't the intellectual property that was bought
and sold, rather the artist. Slavery and patronage are very related systems of
organizing human capital. They're both based around primitive ideas of the
relationship between labor and capital.

What we developed in the subsequent five hundred years is really much better
than what this article is arguing for a return to.

\---

EDIT: I haven't been able to comment for the last 40 minutes or so with a "too
many comments, slow down" warning... I think it is a bug...

so patcon:

As soon as you consider a "song" an asset that can be bought or sold, you're
dealing with the notion of copyright.

What you're describing will only work if there are certain fundamentals in
place, namely, that the "song" in question is generating profits either
through royalties or direct licensing.

So in order for a futures market to develop, the assets in question need to
have the ability to create earnings so then investors can discover a
speculative price for the underlying asset, based on the profits they think
the song will generate.

In order for this to happen we need people and software to honor the notion
that the author and whomever he sold assets in his "song" are due said
royalties and other types of direct or indirect payments. That is, we need to
honor their _rights_ as to how _copies_ are distributed and paid for.

\---

Still can't comment...

ThomPete:

We're building a solution on top of just that kind of unnatural artificial
scarcity, the Bitcoin blockchain:

We're still working on pretty much everything and are somewhat close to a
launch (~2-3 weeks? but we've been saying that for 3 months, you know how it
is...)

Anyways, in the meantime we've been publishing a lot of code, so most of this
stuff does in fact work as intended, just there's a decent amount of moving
parts that had to be invented from scratch and devilish details abound...

Anywho, take a look... but please, be kind about the existing copy and lack of
documentation... we'd love some feedback as well! Spelling mistakes, etc.

Marketing Copy:

[http://blockai-front-page.herokuapp.com/](http://blockai-front-
page.herokuapp.com/)

Code:

[https://github.com/blockai/openpublish](https://github.com/blockai/openpublish)

[https://github.com/williamcotton/blockcast](https://github.com/williamcotton/blockcast)

[https://github.com/blockai/bitstore-
client](https://github.com/blockai/bitstore-client)

[https://github.com/blockai/abstract-common-
blockchain](https://github.com/blockai/abstract-common-blockchain)

[https://github.com/blockai/react-image-
publisher](https://github.com/blockai/react-image-publisher)

[https://github.com/blockai/react-published-images-
list](https://github.com/blockai/react-published-images-list)

[https://github.com/howardwu/react-openpublish-
assets](https://github.com/howardwu/react-openpublish-assets)

[https://www.npmjs.com/~andrewmalta](https://www.npmjs.com/~andrewmalta)

[https://www.npmjs.com/~howard.wu](https://www.npmjs.com/~howard.wu)

[https://www.npmjs.com/~williamcotton](https://www.npmjs.com/~williamcotton)

Screenshots:

[https://bitstore-
test.blockai.com/mqMsBiNtGJdwdhKr12TqyRNE7R...](https://bitstore-
test.blockai.com/mqMsBiNtGJdwdhKr12TqyRNE7RTvEeAkaR/sha1/c8cbbd01da3c635a3b2500b707ec90d4248b16ae)

[https://bitstore-
test.blockai.com/mqMsBiNtGJdwdhKr12TqyRNE7R...](https://bitstore-
test.blockai.com/mqMsBiNtGJdwdhKr12TqyRNE7RTvEeAkaR/sha1/5c5e668833155925ec44f3183b367d6f028150e1)

~~~
drcube
>> In the time of patronage, it wasn't the intellectual property that was
bought and sold, rather the artist. Slavery and patronage are very related
systems of organizing human capital. They're both based around primitive ideas
of the relationship between labor and capital.

This is absurd. Paying for expert services is not the same thing as slavery. I
work as a consultant. Am I a slave?

Why can billions of people go to work each day and earn a paycheck with no
expectation of getting paid ever again for that day's work, but with artists,
the world owes them a living based off of work they did years ago? And if they
must continue to work to get paid it's tantamount to slavery? You won't win
any friends with that kind of logic. Most of us earn paychecks, dude, not
royalties.

~~~
williamcotton
Firstly, an economic and societal system of patronage is completely different
from an economic and societal system of expert services, so you're right to
point out that it is absurd to think that the two are the same, so I agree
with you on that point.

I would hope that most people are striving to put themselves in a position
where they can invest their savings in to equities and real estate because
everyone needs to prepare for a future where their ability to labor to produce
capital might not be enough to support the basic necessities of life.

It might not be immediately obvious, but home ownership and 401ks are pretty
much based on the idea that people will be able to keep living based off of
work that they did years ago.

Copyright is based on similar principles but for those people who produce
intellectual works. They can't take advantage of home ownership or financial
investments if they didn't have any capital to begin with. It's an interface
between ideas and markets.

We're not just talking about music here, we're talking about any and all ideas
and how we as a lawful and orderly society decide to deal with opportunity
costs.

We can have the government pay for it blindly through blanket taxation, or we
can have private individuals pay for it driven by various personal
motivations, and in fact we can invent complex financial instruments to
structure the incentives. We've used governments as executive enforcement to
police marketplaces to try and create level playing fields.

What's really interesting is how services like Spotify are showing how natural
it is for consumer software to honor complex royalty contracts and (in a
rather inefficient and tragically opaque manner) route money to rights-holders
through an opt-in service.

That is to say, we don't need people burning books, smashing printing presses
or prosecuting individuals for circumventing digital rights management
controls in order to create ways for capital to flow from consumer to creator.

Royalty systems and direct licenses are the building blocks of these financial
instruments and the main reason why we don't have a futures market for digital
is because we've never bothered to track these things or put them on modern
digital exchanges. Tracking copyright registration and transfers is a total
mess right now.

------
oconnore
Copyright allows artists to operate in a capitalist society.

It's no coincidence that the sorts of people who oppose copyright, and believe
that we can live in a utopia where it's not necessary, tend to also believe in
post scarcity, basic income, automation, etc. They just need to realize that
there is a necessary ordering here. You get post copyright the moment you get
post capitalism.

~~~
swsieber
While that is true, I think this debate misses the point entirely. I want a
shorter copyright length. This debate has changed it from a 'how much' into a
'all or nothing' discussion.

~~~
cwp
Still, you should welcome this debate. It makes "shorter copyright length"
seem like a reasonable compromise, rather than crazy and radical as the
publishers would portray it.

~~~
Zikes
At the moment a proposal to completely do away with copyright is so ridiculous
that it'd be like trying to reach a compromise with flat Earth theorists by
saying "well maybe the Earth is just really, really flat, but still round."

We should argue directly for reasonable copyright terms that still benefit the
creators while also respecting the consumers. Everything else just muddles the
issue.

~~~
mordocai
It's a known negotiating technique. You ask for something unreasonable that
you know you can't get, then back down to something more reasonable(what you
actually wanted) during negotiation.

~~~
Zikes
Yes, if you're already at the table and you have something the other person
wants.

