Does copying destroy some incentive to produce the original work?
AFAICT, most people who create copyrightable works believe it does. Freeriding rent-seekers who wish to commercialize others’ work tend to believe it doesn’t. I’m personally more inclined to believe the former.
Obviously some creators are happy to create without the additional incentives created by copyright. But here’s the thing: they’re more than welcome to produce and share their work that way already.
Only if you rely on artificial scarcity to get paid; there are other choices that are less harmful. Copyright is not just an incentive, but also a restriction on everybody else. And of course, some people are welcome to not harm others, but the harm that comes from copyright owners restricting others still remains.
I’m sure the art world would be more than happy to consider these alternative ways to get paid. But “here’s another option, otherwise I’m going to steal it anyway” isn’t proposing an alternative, that’s coercion.
Presumably software companies should all be obligated to release their source code right?
It’s free to duplicate, so the scarcity is artificial. Also it only cost labor directly once (at time of writing) which they should get paid for, but after that they’re just benefiting from artificial scarcity/government-enforced monopoly.
Also obviously all model weights should be public. The labor all just went into training it, which happened once, but after that it’s just artificial scarcity.
> I’m sure the art world would be more than happy to consider these alternative ways to get paid.
You are correct, which is why a lot of artists actually already live in a post copyright world. Commissions, patronage, live performances... these don't need copyright to function.
Edit: The issue for this is that even when no copyright is needed, people do not give it up. I think at the very least, copyright should be opt-in and costs money to register, much like patents.
> But “here’s another option, otherwise I’m going to steal it anyway” isn’t proposing an alternative, that’s coercion.
It's not possible to steal public data. And the free culture community has proposed many over the years.
> Presumably software companies should all be obligated to release their source code right?
Then simply use the works from people who choose to publish that way! It’s well within their rights to do so.
Hey if you really believe software companies should be obligated to release their source code, I can at least respect the coherence of your opinion. Seems extreme and like it’d kill a lot of valuable incentives, but at least it’s a coherent view someone can hold!
>Commissions, patronage, live performances... these don't need copyright to function.
those are all copyright. You very much can go after someone for infringement if you give away paywalled content. Commissions still can't be duplicated and sold en masse just because you paid $20 for it. And yes, even concerts have DMCA to worry about. small artists generally won't bother, but it doesn't mean they can't.
> I think at the very least, copyright should be opt-in and costs money to register, much like patents.
they changed that precisely to benefit smaller artists. BigCo doesnt care if it costs 1m dollars/year to register a copyright if they feel it's a billion dollar idea. Meanwhile, many artist may not know their rights until a lawyer is consulted, and it'd be too late to register.
AFAICT, most people who create copyrightable works believe it does. Freeriding rent-seekers who wish to commercialize others’ work tend to believe it doesn’t. I’m personally more inclined to believe the former.
Obviously some creators are happy to create without the additional incentives created by copyright. But here’s the thing: they’re more than welcome to produce and share their work that way already.