"Content (of similar quantity and quality) will in fact still be created, in spite of that business model dying. You're not likely to convince people of this, I believe."
"Content" was created long before copyrights. Technology may have changed and opened the door to new kinds of entertainment, but if you are looking for an example of how entertainment might be created in the absence of copyright, you need look no further than a history book.
How will movies be monetized? Maybe we need movie theaters to deliver a positive experience we cannot easily duplicate in our homes. Maybe we will see an increase in serials -- you do not get to see the next installment of a popular show until a certain amount of money is paid. Maybe there is some radically different way to monetize movies that neither you nor I are creative enough to come up with. As long as we cling to copyright, however, we will not only never see such things, but we will continue to see great systems and technologies killed in the name of copyright enforcement.
"Content (of similar quantity and quality)"
I think we can strive for something of better quality than what we see today. The majority of today's mainstream music and movies are not particularly high quality -- formulaic plots, formulaic melodies and arrangements, a heavy focus on special effects to make up for bad storytelling and unoriginal music, and a general lack of creativity.
If you want to convince me, show me where in history you have examples of content being created without copyrights, of the same quantity/quality. Obviously we'll have to normalize your data to the size of the population in the past, not to mention the amount of free time they had available.
And if you are really interested in this topic, I suggest you read about the history of copyrights. For example, in the 1800's there was a large debate about the values of copyrights in the British Parliament, which echoes a lot of the same arguments made today (even including a prediction of the kind of piracy we have today). One of the non-obvious points raised is that a model like you describe, e.g. most "normal" jobs where you get paid for your time/output, has some very undesirable properties. Specifically, not allowing for the "misunderstood genius" of people, but solely promoting popular content. The same kind of popular content you say is not of high quality, and which makes up a large proportion of content today, but definitely not everything.
I'm not saying there aren't other answers out there. I'm saying that dismissively saying "look at history" ironically ignores history - the systems in place today are the result of a lot of discoure on these subjects throughout history, and saying "let's just scratch what there is and start over" is about as smart as trashing a large software project and recoding from scratch. [1]
[1] For non-programmers: this is widely considered a very wrong thing to do.
"And if you are really interested in this topic, I suggest you read about the history of copyrights"
Been there, done that. You left a few details out, like how the first copyright law, the Licensing of the Press Act, was passed to enforce censorship, and how the next iteration was passed following heavy lobbying pressure by the printers who had enjoyed the monopoly position they held under the censorship program. The idea that copyright began as a way to pay authors is based on ignoring the Licensing Act and based on ignoring the role that printers played in pushing for the Statute of Anne.
The arguments authors made in favor of copyrights in the 18th century would have amounted to nothing were it not for the business community.
Prior to copyright, you had Shakespeare, you had folk music (which was spread peer to peer), and you had other modes of entertainment. Nobody was wanting for music or comedy. Written entertainment was more limited by the poor literacy rate of the general population than by the lack of written works. The biggest problem facing actors in 16th century England was not the lack of income (despite the easy duplication of a play), but the fact that they were often arrested as vagrants, and the general trouble with having secular theater at a time when religious institutions were fighting to stay relevant (sound familiar?).
Numbers are unfortunately hard to come by. On the other hand, you can find many shelves of centuries-old songs that were recorded by modern singers -- and it is not unreasonable to say that those songs are just a fraction of what people were singing centuries ago (society tends to forget songs, stories, and games over time). I do not think it is wrong to suggest that there were not shortages of music in the 16th century.
"not allowing for the "misunderstood genius" of people, but solely promoting popular content"
Copyright has done little to alleviate that. Misunderstood genius does not pay the rent; only popularity gives artists enough income to make ends meet on royalties alone. Authors, musicians, and actors frequently stick to their "day jobs" just to pay rent.
> If you want to convince me, show me where in history you have examples of content being created without copyrights, of the same quantity/quality.
That is going to be difficult given that copyright has been granted automatically on new works for a long time. However, I will say that my most favourite shows to watch on TV are available via video podcasts for free (legally). They are not exactly free of copyright, but for all intents and purposes, I'm not sure the lack of copyright would really affect these programs. Any money they do make comes via me watching the show, not by their method of distribution.
"Content" was created long before copyrights. Technology may have changed and opened the door to new kinds of entertainment, but if you are looking for an example of how entertainment might be created in the absence of copyright, you need look no further than a history book.
How will movies be monetized? Maybe we need movie theaters to deliver a positive experience we cannot easily duplicate in our homes. Maybe we will see an increase in serials -- you do not get to see the next installment of a popular show until a certain amount of money is paid. Maybe there is some radically different way to monetize movies that neither you nor I are creative enough to come up with. As long as we cling to copyright, however, we will not only never see such things, but we will continue to see great systems and technologies killed in the name of copyright enforcement.
"Content (of similar quantity and quality)"
I think we can strive for something of better quality than what we see today. The majority of today's mainstream music and movies are not particularly high quality -- formulaic plots, formulaic melodies and arrangements, a heavy focus on special effects to make up for bad storytelling and unoriginal music, and a general lack of creativity.