> you have to find a solid alternative for creative workers before you can abolish it.
Why? Being a "creative worker" doesn't mean the market owes one a living. Abolishing copyright would make competition and innovation easier, as well as allow creative people more freedom without fear of legal repercussions. This would benefit consumers in the long run by driving costs down and forcing quality to win in the marketplace, rather than letting a few big companies assert control over valuable IPs.
Many of us believe the right to freely edit and redistribute software is fundamental, why would that right not naturally extend to all forms of media? Especially given that most creative output nowadays exists as software.
Ok, so creative workers should participate in a market but at the same time should not expect any benefit from it. Why should they produce content at all?
As for software: You can choose to put your code under an open source license, you're not obligated to it. Many have the financial means to do so but many who make a living from that software don't.
Why should they depend on copyright to force the market to value their content over that of potential competition?
People could still prefer J.K. Rowlings' Harry Potter even if it wasn't illegal for other people to write Harry Potter fiction, the books and movies could still make money on name recognition alone. But if someone did come along and write a better version of Harry Potter that became more popular, wouldn't they deserve to profit as well?
Why should Disney be able to do that with a thousand years' of fairy tale mythology, but no one else be able to with modern mythology like Star Wars? Having cultural expression so inextricably locked up by corporations is not healthy. And yes, it might devalue the individual in the marketplace, but everyone suffers that fate now, regardless of their field.
Why go through the trouble of writing a better Harry Potter? You could simply take the existing story and sell it yourself - or put it on the internet so that no one needs to buy it at all.
I agree that it might be beneficial for society if all media were available for free and I agree copyright is probably not the right tool, but that's why said more thoughts effort needs to be spent to find better alternatives.
In the 19th century, America didn't respect British copyright. And Charles Dickens was the most popular writer in the US and was printed there without paying Dickens a cent. So how did Dickens handle this? By going on tour in the US. People paid money to see him recite his works much like music concerts. In fact, this is how most professional musicians make money today in the post physical album world. They don't make much money off their music directly but rather the music serves as advertisements for their live shows.
> the books and movies could still make money on name recognition alone.
Books, maybe. But without copyright, what keeps movie studios from just turning J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter books into movies without paying her anything?
Nothing, but there is a business advantage to having an author and their fans support your work rather than turn them against it, so if J.K. Rowling refused to do that without getting paid, she still has leverage regardless of copyright.
My argument here is that part of the intrinsic value of a creative work is in the author or team behind it, and that doesn't necessarily need the force of law to back it up.
Look at doujin culture in Japan. People create derivative (mostly pornographic) works using established properties and characters, but the originals still retain their value. It's technically illegal, but it's still permitted as authors consider doujins free advertising and a way for new talent to showcase their work.
>> Being a "creative worker" doesn't mean the market owes one a living.
Of course it doesn't. The starving artist trope is very much real.
Creative workers are mainly entrepreneurs, and they take massive risks for little reward. They work 15 hour days just like any startup owner.
>> Abolishing copyright would make competition and innovation easier, as well as allow creative people more freedom without fear of legal repercussions.
No it wouldn't. The flip side of copyright is that it prevents someone from going in a ripping up or destroying artwork without legal repercussions. This is why many street artists can become famous, which would be impossible if their work was simply painted over by the next artist. In many cities, the next building owner cannot even paint over it legally.
>> This would benefit consumers in the long run by driving costs down and forcing quality to win in the marketplace, rather than letting a few big companies assert control over valuable IPs.
You read the same internet as I do. Low quality work has won the content war through the shear force of quantity.
>> Many of us believe the right to freely edit and redistribute software is fundamental, why would that right not naturally extend to all forms of media?
Some creative workers believe the same, and there works of art of all forms that follow the open source philosophy.
However, there is a big difference between modifying (which is allowed under copyright laws) and outright theft. If someone clones your repo on github and takes full credit for your work, you wouldn't be happy about it. If they put ASCII dicks all through the source and said it was your work, this would probably offend you.
>>> Especially given that most creative output nowadays exists as software.
eyeroll -- most programmers aren't creative professionals or engineers.
Why? Being a "creative worker" doesn't mean the market owes one a living. Abolishing copyright would make competition and innovation easier, as well as allow creative people more freedom without fear of legal repercussions. This would benefit consumers in the long run by driving costs down and forcing quality to win in the marketplace, rather than letting a few big companies assert control over valuable IPs.
Many of us believe the right to freely edit and redistribute software is fundamental, why would that right not naturally extend to all forms of media? Especially given that most creative output nowadays exists as software.