Copyright Only Good For The Middlemen
from the more-good-points dept
It seems that more people are realizing many of the problems with our current intellectual property system. Here's an opinion piece from Australia saying that copyrights distort the market and are unnecessary. The writer points out all of the writers, musicians, and artists who produced works prior to the idea of intellectual property (Shakespeare, Beethoven, and da Vinci, for example) and how many of them created their great works by building on the works of others. Then, he makes the really important point that, despite everything you hear from the various "industries" most artists do not make money from royalties on their copyrights. "A very, very small proportion of artists make money from royalties. Most writers and musicians and painters - and software developers - are paid by the hour or by the project." The counter argument, of course, is that without copyright, the people who pay these artists won't bother to any more - but that doesn't mean there aren't plenty of business models that don't involve relying on intellectual property. What's really at issue here, is that digital content removes the need for the middleman - the distributor - in the content business. The artists can now go directly to the customers, and can create new business models on their own. So, the next time you hear the entertainment industry talk about the need to protect copyright "for the artists", know that they're really just trying to save their increasingly obsolete selves.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Any proof to the claims in this article?
A very, very small proportion of artists make money from royalties. Most writers and musicians and painters - and software developers - are paid by the hour or by the project.
Firstly I disagree - most authors of books, and scripts are paid royalties or at least aim to write so they get some. Secondly if you remove the copyright protection that the distributers of your works receive then these companies will not even hire to the services of people creating content for fixed payment - there would be no profit to it.
The author writes:
Just imagine, if you will, a world without copyright and intellectual property laws. Anybody could copy anything - music, films, software, books - at any time, for any reason, with no penalty and at no cost. What would such a world look like?
People would still write, just as Goethe and Swift and Racine did when they lived in such a world. People would still paint. People would still write and perform music. We would still enjoy their output - though at lower cost. Payment for performance would become more important. Content would not change, just the business models based on them.
There would be less output - if people want to produce free content then nothing stops them today. If they would want to get paid for their output then they need copyright protection.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Any proof to the claims in this article?
As for the argument that there is no profit if there were no copyright, we've argued against that point before. There are other ways to profit off of creative works that don't involve relying on copyright.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Any proof to the claims in this article?
You've made a lot of vague statements about services, promotions, or subscriptions. But what if people don't want the strings attached, and just want the content?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Any proof to the claims in this article?
Then they get it?
Which part is hard to understand?
Here, I'll give you an example. Techdirt is advertising for our Techdirt Corporate Intelligence service. We give the basic content of Techdirt away for free, and use it to attract people to sign up for our service. The vast majority of you don't sign up for the service - but enough do to keep us in business - and that's all that matters.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Any proof to the claims in this article?
But, what if people want to make more than some shoestring budget? In a hypothetical alternative universe, the music industry could be run by save-the-starving-babies-in-Africa types with altruistic motives, but in general, artists have just as much ambition for worldly wealth and fame as any other yuppie.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Any proof to the claims in this article?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Any proof to the claims in this article?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Any proof to the claims in this article?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Any proof to the claims in this article?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Any proof to the claims in this article?
Just like they did with Shakespeare?
No, other business models can evolve. Why is this so difficult for people to understand. Just because the actual content is free, doesn't mean that there are no business models.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Any proof to the claims in this article?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Any proof to the claims in this article?
There are plenty of ways to make money that don't require relying on copyright.
[ link to this | view in thread ]