> I imagine there's been measurable harm to our society's cultural and scientific advancement because copyright forces us to recreate others' work instead of building off of it.
Part of that harm is in creating monopolistic entities like Youtube because only big players can take on big media. If Youtube didn't have contentID they'd be sued into the ground by the publishers.
> But what does that world look like? Quite frankly, I'm not sure. Of course, we can't just abolish copyright with no replacement; it's certainly necessary to reward the creation of this work somehow.
This is, in many ways, a world in which we already live due to the proliferation of piracy. There's still plenty of monetization opportunities:
> Those monetization options pay less than you think they do for the vast majority of creators.
Traditional publishing has the same issue to a far greater extent, due to the inherent barriers to entry in that model. Something like Kickstarter or Patreon is actually far more equitable. (Bearing in mind that this sort of content provision is very much a superstar sector, with a handful of unicorns and lots and lots of also-rans, so "more equitable" is still quite relative!)
They pay less in a world where people are used to "buying" works rather than funding them. It's unreasonable to think that people would just stop spending their money if copyright was abolished.
Part of that harm is in creating monopolistic entities like Youtube because only big players can take on big media. If Youtube didn't have contentID they'd be sued into the ground by the publishers.
> But what does that world look like? Quite frankly, I'm not sure. Of course, we can't just abolish copyright with no replacement; it's certainly necessary to reward the creation of this work somehow.
This is, in many ways, a world in which we already live due to the proliferation of piracy. There's still plenty of monetization opportunities:
- Art commissions
- Patreon
- Ad-sponsored serial content
- Subscription models
- Live shows