A “utopian vision” that is so full of contradictions and misinformation that I am hard pressed to know even where to begin critiqueing the points being made.

Mr. Doctrow speaks of encouraging interpersonal discourse, but it is difficult to square such discourse with the widespread uploading of copyrighted works to the world at large. No entertainment content provider who is a member of groups such as the RIAA and the MPAA have ever seriously worried about sharing content among a small social group. Books are loaned all the time. CDs/DVDs/VCR tapes/LPs/etc. have always been shared on a limited basis and content providers have not lost any sleep at night because of such sharing. However, it is quite another matter when suddenly sharing expands from a close knit group to the world at large. The former is but a drop in the economic bucket of a content provider’s financials, but the latter is quite another matter. It does impact the bottom line.

Yes, there are examples of some who have tried out new business models that do not depend upon copyright law in the manner it has been historically utilized. Creative commons is one example. Others have decided to eschew the law altogether. Perhaps someday these models will make wider inroads into content distribution…but that someday is well into the foreseeable future. Until then, it is getting a bit old to hear the constant refrain of persons who rationalize unlawful copying and distribution for the most specious of reasons. “The content providers have made more than enough money, not to mention they are screwing the artists.” “By copying and distributing I am giving them free exposure, so they should be grateful.” “I get paid by the hour for work done. Why should an artist get paid for work they did a long time ago?” These ridiculous arguments continue ad nauseum.

It is nice to know that persons like Mr. Doctrow exist and act upon the principles they hold near and dear. Ours is not, however, a one-size-fits-all society, and other equally principled people hold contrary views. To extoll Mr. Doctrow’s principles and demean those whose principles may happen to differ with his is manifestly unfair.

Copyright law is far from perfect, and in some instances is downright draconian. Rather than villifying it, perhaps some of its detractors might consider using their mental prowess and articulate ideas/suggestions to try and strike what they believe might be a fairer balance between the the creative and user communities.

“A strawman is an argument that we did not make to knockover. The argument presented was one we did not make. It was a strawman.”

The argument presented is one that many have made here. That’s what he’s referring to. Of course you didn’t say so in your post, but many others have done so in this blog in the past.

“I don’t see how it is “fundamentally inefficient” to get paid multiple times.

Then I would suggest a refresher course in basic economics.”

Thanks for the advice. Perhaps you could explain it to the likes of Penguin and Knopf, and convince them that authors need not get paid multiple times.

“Writing is not the same as plumbing; I don’t see why they should be treated equally.

That, my friend, is a strawman. Who said it was the same as plumbing or treated the same?”

If they are not the same, why do many people (I’m not saying you are) in this blog think writers, like plumbers, should be paid only once? Can someone clear the air on this, please?

“Assume I write a book, which sells thousands of copies a year over 20 years. The publisher makes money by selling those copies over 2 decades: I get my share of those profits through royalties, which is ensured through copyright. How is this “fundamentally inefficient”?

Well, you are selling scarce goods (books) which is more efficient, so again, we’re talking about different things. But if you’re talking just about selling the content, it is quite economically inefficient — and if the history of economics has taught us anything, it’s that economic inefficiencies don’t tend to last.”

How are we talking about different things? Copyright protects the author’s right to make money from scarce goods, because in the absence of copyright, publishers would not be required to pay royalty.

“As per usual, you seem to falsely be assuming that this is what we want to happen, as opposed to a simple explanation of what is happening. You can whine and complain about the old way all you want. Economics doesn’t care.”

And you, as usual, assume that I am whining and complaining about the old way.

“All the time I see you go hammer and tongs at copyright, calling for its abolition, urging everyone to give away their creative work free and make money elsewhere – not for once suggesting that maybe copyrght reform is the need of the hour and not coyright removal.

Hmm. I talk about copyright reform quite frequently. Please to not lie about my positions.”

Can you state our position clearly? Do you want copyright reform or do you want copyright abolition? I am still not clear as to what your position is.

“Even when it has been pointed out to you that lack of copyright could lead to Big Business exploiting the artist (as in movie studios not paying authors a dime), you refuse to even entertain the idea that perhaps copyright does serve some purpose, it does benefit some creative artists, it does ensure that some creative guys don’t get exploited.

“Pointed out to me”? It has not. You have made that argument, but you have failed to substantiate it. Instead, when you made those claims, I pointed you to evidence that your claims were not true. So, on the whole, I’m not sure why you insist on repeating those false claims.

Goodness, Mike. Please note the word “could” in my statement. All I did was point to a possibility. How can that be construed as a claim? Did I ever say movie studios WILL not pay authors a dime? Now that could qualify as a claim (and you would be justified in lammbasting me for making a false claim)? I clearly said lack of copyright “COULD” lead to a situation where studios do not pay the author. It is a futuristic scenario, a fictional scenario because copyright removal is not a reality as yet. And what is your evidence that this will definitely not happen? You don’t have any such evidence simply because copyright removal has not happened yet.

I think you are unable to entertain my arguments because it knocks at your theory that copyright removal will benefit everyone.

Over to you.

Those who give money as the only motivation for content creators to create fail to understand the basic nature of the creative process. The payoff for a real artist isn’t in the financial return, it never is. It’s in the very act of creation, of taking an idea and expressing it and sharing it with others for mutual enjoyment. Getting paid for it is nice, but not truly necessary. The creative process of painting, of writing, of composing, the feeling of seeing that idea take form and shape, is the real thrill. Thinking of the money only constipates the process.

I’ve written more than a few stories that I know will never be published, AC, but I don’t regret doing so. I learned from it and got better as a writer as a result. And there were many readers who enjoyed what I had written, much as I enjoyed writing it. You forget, people were telling stories, making music, and drawing art long before copyright ever existed, and without expecting anything in return. People still do so today. Trying to exert Nazi-like control over one’s creation is the true idiocy.

Tell me, AC, have you ever created anything? As in art? Literature? Music?

“That’s simply not true. Market forces did not create copyright law, which is the mechanism that allows an author to be paid multiple times.”

Simply not true? Copyright ALLOWS an author to be paid multiple times, but it is the market that DETERMINES how much, if at all, an author actually gets paid – because his earnings are directly related to how many copies of his book the market is willing to buy, and at what price. How do you think JK Rowling became so rich?

Using Rowling as a hypothetical example: Imagine if the Harry Potter series were copyright-free. Assuming there’s a market for 1 million copies of each book in the series, won’t a sizeable percentage of those books be low-cost paperbacks published by houses that may not send her a dime? Is that scenario impossible? Won’t Rowling then stand to lose some (or a lot) of the money she’s been able to make thanks to copyright?

“A plumber’s work, although a one-time task, is determined by the market as unworthy of multiple payment.

Again, incorrect. A plumber’s work is not capable of being copyrighted, therefore the opportunity is not present. The market doesn’t enter into the equation of determining multiple payments.”

Incorrect? Why, because you say so? A museum curator’s work, or a sound engineer’s, or a nurse’s, is not capable of being copyrighted either – does that mean they all make the same amount of money? If the market doesn’t determine how much you and I make, I don’t know who does!

“Once again, you’re trying to use the law to counter basic economics so you can ignore the actual point being made.”

Please stop using “basic economics” as a shield against any arguments I make, as though that’s the only thing matters and the law doesn’t count for much. It shows you as one out of touch with basic reality, the world we live in, where the market plays a great role in determining your lifestyle, and in these troubled times, your livelihood as well.

“First, you probably should provide a reason why the author’s descendants should receive an income from work they didn’t do. After all, your stance indicates that you’re against others profiting off the end result of an author’s work without compensation. Why should the author’s descendant’s be any different?”

You’re driving off into a tangent. I was trying to drive home the point that works in the public domain are being used for free by Big Content, I wasn’t trying to make a case for descendants receiving income for something they didn’t do (that’s a separate issue concerning the length of copyright, which experts of the caliber of Mike Masnick are already talking about).
My point was that authors would be justified in fearing that Big Content will leap at the first chance to use their work and not pay them, because if there’s one thing the big companies love, it’s snatching money from the little guy. Copyright is a protection authors have from such greedy corporates.

“In any case, the point is to use a different business model – obviously if you try to rely on the “give it away and pray” model, you’re going to be sorely disappointed. You’re basically stating that if you try to use the existing business model without copyright, that business model will fail. That doesn’t validate your argument in any way, however, because the whole point is that the business model would need to change.”

Wow. This is precisely the problem! You don’t like the current model, so you want everyone to drop it. Are you saying both models cannot co-exist? I ask you: what incentive does an author have to drop the old one? In the existing model, there’s no need to give it away nor pray; if your work is good enough, or if a publisher thinks it is good enough, he will pay you upfront for sole rights to make money off it. And you will be guaranteed a steady stream of income over a period of time (it’s like interest payments on an investment).

Now why would any author want to move to another model where he has to go the extra mile, sometimes to the extent of selling T-shirts:-)? Also, authors who want to try the new model are free to do so, but why should everyone be forced to drop the old one, simply because it doesn’t suit your convenience? Shouldn’t I, as an author, be free to choose my model?

“Disregarding the fact that you can’t lose what was never received, no, I don’t have any idea how much revenue copyright holders could have earned compared to what was earned. And I daresay you don’t either; there are too many factors involved in that equation to come anywhere close to resembling an accurate figure.”

You can’t lose what was never received? WTF…do you even know what I am talking about? Sorry for the swearing, but I very clearly stated that there’s a huge thriving pirated DVD market in the streets of Asia. People are buying DVDs at a dollar apiece from bootleggers, not a cent from that goes to the copyright holders. This is not like a million guys downloading an MP3; to call that a loss of revenue would be fallacious, but what I am talking about is actual sales of scarce goods, stuff that people are willing to pay for, every day! I don’t have an accurate figure either, but I can state confidently that all of it was revenue lost by the copyright holders, who keep making the classic mistake of letting pirates win through pricing.

“But you continue to base your assumptions on the continuation of the current system in the absence of copyright. Because of this misunderstanding, you’re propping up straw man arguments.”

Here we go again. If you disagree with someone, immediately bring in basic economics or accuse him of propping up strawmen! Great strategy. But please enlighten me on just one point: in my old copyright-reliant system, an author relies on selling scarce goods in the form of printed books; in your great new model, he does something totally different and revolutionary – he gives away the content free and makes money through…selling scarce goods in the form of printed books. Wow! Too cool! Now just what’s the difference?

“You make it sound like there’s no way to make money without copyright, which is blatantly false.”

You’re now trying to put words into my mouth. Sorry, nice try though. I never said the only way to make money was through copyright.

“You can make just as much money, if not more, without copyright as you can with it. But you obviously can’t accomplish it the same way; different business models are required.”

Of course, probably the first thing you have said that I agree with. Now, perhaps you can enlighten me on whether the existing and your great new models can co-exist. (I don’t think it has been proven that you can make as much or more money with the new model, but I don’t want to quibble. Perhaps it’s true).

“That’s all the reasoning I can give to support my argument against copyright removal.

So your argument is that without copyright, the existing business models based on copyright would fail. No kidding – nobody said anything to the contrary.”

Wow again! How clever of you! Of course, the existing model could fail without copyright in the case of movies and publishing, unlike music, where it is failing despite the existence of copyright. It all boils down to how content is consumed. People are happy to throw out their newspapers and compact discs, but have not yet come around to throwing out their printed books. New business models are welcome, but the old one’s not about to wither away yet. So, would you now please allow us poor authors the freedom to choose the model that we think has the greater chance of keeping the home fires burning?

“If she attempts to maintain the same business model without the protection of copyright, then yes, she would most likely face lower book sales (not a loss of money, as you incorrectly state).”

And why would she want to throw away the existing model for one that will likely lower book sales and her revenue through book sales? She will have to make up for that loss through other avenues. And she can pursue these avenues even under the existing system.
Also, what’s to stop a Hollywood studio from making a Harry Potter movie without paying her anything? Are you of the opinion that Hollywood should have a free run on books and that authors should have no protection against Big Content?

“I was trying to drive home the point that works in the public domain are being used for free by Big Content.

Um, works in the public domain are being used for free by everyone, not just Big Content.”

Um…but the fact is Big Content stands to gain a great deal in a copyright-free world becaue they will not be obligated to pay any writer. Perhaps you think that is not an issue, but I am sure many authors do. So does the law, thankfully (oops…sorry to bring in the law when it’s irrelevant here).

“The current model is more focused on protectionism than on promoting the progress of the arts. That being the case, I believe it would be in an author’s best interest to investigate alternative business methods that do not rely on a government crutch.”

Thanks for stating your stance very succinctly; it’s admirable, even though I disagree with it in parts. And by the way, do you seriously believe we haven’t made much progress in the arts in the 100-150 years copyright has been around?

“I don’t believe I ever said that authors should be forced to drop their current business model, for my “convenience” or otherwise. But copyright law isn’t a business model, so advocating for its removal or limiting isn’t “forcing” a choice on the author.”

It certainly is, becaue if copyright goes, they will be forced to adopt your model, won’t they? You leave them with no choice, because you are unwilling to let authors choose their model, simply because you believe copyright law has no place in today’s world. I ask you again: do you think both models can co-exist? I believe they can, simply because authors are free to choose the new model even in a world where copyright is still around. Live and let live.

“Not sure where you’ve been, but selling scarce goods isn’t new, different, or revolutionary.”

So why are you pretending that your model is something new and worthy of replacing the old one, which relies pretty much on the same principle of selling the same scarce goods?

“As for what the difference is, by selling scarce goods instead of relying on copyright, an author can ensure that his work is available to a much greater audience.”

They are already selling the same scarce goods that you want them to, and to a pretty wide audience. Where is the difference? They can sell all scarce goods in both models. What is the incentive to choose your model?

“Yes, I know exactly what you’re talking about. And the situation you provided is an example where piracy has decreased the number of potential legitimate sales that could be made. But “lost revenue” is not an accurate description, because they never received money for the pirated products.”

In an assured market, say, for 10,000 DVDs of Dark Knight on day one, how is it not lost revenue if that need is met by pirates instead of me, the authorized seller? I don’t understand how you can claim it isn’t lost revenue. They pirated products were sold AT the expense of my DVDs. If the pirated copies weren’t around, that revenue would have been mine.

Hi Mike

“How do you think JK Rowling became so rich?

By exploiting monopoly rents. That’s hardly an endorsement of copyright. It’s more of a condemnation of it. Do you know how many writers DID NOT get rich because a system of copyright distorts the market such that JK Rowling exploits it at the expense of others?”

The fact that she became rich becaue the market thought se should be rewarded for her magnificent imagination is a condemnation of copyright? Rowling exploiting market at the expense of others? I just don’t understand. Could youi please elaborate?

“You are assuming in the absence of copyright that Rowling wouldn’t adopt a different business model that allows her to profit. Trent Reznor came up with a way to make sure people still paid him a ton of his albums, despite releasing them for free as CC-licensed music. What’s to stop Rowling from doing the same thing?”

That’s comparing apples and oranges, despite basic economics, because how content is consumed plays a great role in determining what scarce goods can be sold in today’s digital age. Perhaps Trent doesn’t mind Hollywood using his music without paying him, but surely all authors – including Rowling – wouldn’t want that (I’m assuming corporates are evil bastards). Hell, even Doctorow doesn’t allow commercial exploitation of his work (according to Wikipedia).

“Nothing. But you seem unable to comprehend that there are other business models out there. We shouldn’t all suffer because cram can’t think creatively.”

Come one, I’m not in the business of thinking creatively. That’s the job of experts like you and DanC. But does that mean I lose my right to criticize it or suggest that perhaps both models can co-exist? And if the current model works fine for me, why should I not run with it?

“No one said that the market doesn’t determine worth. The PROBLEM (as was clearly explained to you multiple times, so I’m not sure why we’re explaining it again) was that copyright puts an ARTIFICIAL bounty in the middle of this, allowing SOME authors to artificially benefit, while destroying the market for many more. It’s called monopoly rents. Learn about it.”

Please, sire, teach me! Copyright allows ALL writers to benefit. How does it destroy the market for other original work?

“Please stop using “basic economics” as a shield against any arguments I make, as though that’s the only thing matters and the law doesn’t count for much.

Um. It is what matters. Your inability to understand that is your problem.”

And your inability to look at anything else – including the law – is also a problem.

“My point was that authors would be justified in fearing that Big Content will leap at the first chance to use their work and not pay them, because if there’s one thing the big companies love, it’s snatching money from the little guy. Copyright is a protection authors have from such greedy corporates.

Again, you’re basing it on the idea that other business models don’t develop.”

That’s handwaving! You have not addressed the point: how can I ensure Big Content will not go ahead and make a movie and without paying me?

“Not so. We want the gov’t to stop FALSELY propping up one business model that creates a few winners at the expense of many others. I can’t see how you think that’s fair.”

But everyone’s free to choose the copyright-free model. One who does won’t be affected by one who doesn’t. How is that unfair? On the contrary, if copyright goes everyone is forced to accept your model. Is that fair? It’s not about whether authors can make more money or reach a wider audience – it’s about choice and control over their work.

“Based on this definition of “loss” then if you buy a pizza instead of a sandwich, the cost of the pizza is now a “loss” to the sandwich shop. Can you see why that’s a problem?”

I give up! Mike, those pirated DVDs were/are sold AT the expense of authorized DVDs. It’s not pizza vs sandwich. If those pirated DVDs were not around, the authorized ones would have sold. It’s as simple as that.

“People make a buying decision. That’s not a loss, it’s a business model issue.”

It’s a pricing issue, actually. Because the law won’t do anything about it. The only way corporates can fight piracy is with price; sometimes, it may not be enough to cover costs of operations, which is why some companies throw in the towel and leave the scene.

“But if the gov’t props up the model, what happens is exactly what’s happening in the music and movie industry, which is those guys take over the legislative agenda and make it much harder for other business models to survive.”

I don’t see how other business models are affected by the current system. After all, an author is free to give away his work, put it in front of a global audience online, start his own imprint, sign books, interact with his audience, etc…all without the so-called copyright crutch. How will his business be affected by the government protecting some other writer or publisher?

“Copyright does not exist to protect authors. It exists to promote the progress of the arts.”

Copyright’s mandate may be the promotion of the progress of the arts, but it also serves to protect the authors. Removing copyright takes away the little guy’s defence against Big Business.

“Another fact is other authors stand to gain a great deal in a copyright free world because they won’t be obligated to license works that can be used as the basis for new works.”

Why don’t you address my point directly? Your point is certainly valid – that’s one of the advantages of doing away with copyright. But what I am referring to is the disadvantage: Big Content can get away with paying authors nothing. Is that a clear and present danger or not? Isn’t that something authors would be worried about?

“For someone that’s accused me of trying to put words in his mouth, you certainly seem more than comfortable doing it yourself. As per usual, I didn’t say or imply anything of the kind.”

Hey, cool! I’m sorry if I came across as trying to put words in your mouth. That sure wasn’t the intention. You keep stating copyright’s main purpose is promoting the progress of arts, and I personally think there has been enormous progress – you think it’s inspite of copyright, I think it’s also because of it. To each his own.

“It certainly is, becaue if copyright goes, they will be forced to adopt your model, won’t they?

I didn’t present a business model. Selling scarce goods by itself isn’t a business model; business models are built upon the concept of utilizing scarce resources.”

But when you take away copyright, some business models will likely fail. And I don’t think the existence of copyright harms models built on keeping the work copyright-free. I believe just as proprietary and open source software co-exist, copyrighted and free works can live and thrive together.

“If the current model relied on the selling of scarce resources, then copyright wouldn’t be necessary to support it.”

Are you saying the current model does not rely on the selling of scarce resources? Have I understood you correctly? Copyright is necessary to support the current model because the creator would cease to have control over his work and determine how he profits from it.

“But that isn’t true – the current model relies on copyright to remove the right of the public to do what they want with the purchased content.”

Copyright only removes the public’s right to profit from an author’s content in an unauthorized fashion. I don’t find that objectionable. There is something called fair use. And it is called fair use mainly because there is unfair use, such as commercially exploiting an author’s work and screwing him out of payment.

“The difference is that without copyright, others can take advantage of the author’s finished product to create more works. And the author would be able to do the same.”

Valid point. We see that already happening in China, where there are several Harry Potter novels written by local guys for an audience that can’t have enough of it. I don’t know if that’s a good thing.

“Revenue is income – if you didn’t receive the income, you can’t lose it. If your actual income fails to meet your potential income, you didn’t magically “lose” the difference.”

And why didn’t I receive that income? Because someone else did. It’s a clear case of one profiting at the expense of another – zero sum game. If my actual income does not meet my potential income, it’s because of the pirates — I don’t see how you can claim I didn’t “lose” that money.

For this discussion to make sense, we need to define some terms. Infinite – the number of requests you receive to do work for free. Finite – the number of requests you receive to do work for pay.

So, a musician puts our free work and guess what; he receives a multitude of requests for more free work. He bases his next work on his previous work and now tries to charge for them and guess what? You guessed it, nobody will pay for it because it was free the first time.