Yes, as in current reality, people who do/hand-over work without a prior contract will get ripped off. I’m not sure JK Rowling is that stupid though. She’s had to deal with Hollywood after all…
Firstly, Lamia, thanks for posting one of the very few intelligent pro-copyright posts in this thread.
I should really have said “little difference”. I meant that they’d still sell bucketloads of books through publishers. Details on how they’d achieve this might vary a bit.
Well, I thought I had! They sign a deal with a publisher who pays them money. In return the publisher gets the first run, the authorised printing and book signings and readings will feature that publishers books only.
Now some people have argued that this advantage is worth little (someone said “nothing” but I’ll assume that’s hyberbole), but I don’t find their arguments convincing at all. Why do publishers currently encourage their authors to do signings and public readings if they’re worth nothing? These events cost money to organise. Obviously they consider it worth the cost!
One difference in the post-copyright world is that authors who interact more with their readers will get better sales. I consider this an advantage.
This is current reality. Clearly it hasn’t stopped best-sellers from making money.
I disagree. If rival publishers start cranking out cheaper copies then you drop the price. You’ve already made significant sales (that’s why they’re copying you, remember?) so why not continue to cash in? And again, when your new author is news and attracting fans is a good point for having book readings and signings which will feature your book.
Considering the massive demand there is for new reading material, I find it very difficult to believe that no-one can think of ways to make money from it without the crutch of copyright.
The problem here is that you’re looking at ways for artists to making money that depend on copyright, pointing out that they’re impossible without copyright and concluding from that that there’s no way of making money without copyright. I’m sure you can spot the logical flaw there! 
The other night I went to see a band, in a small cosy venue, very atmospheric, still managed to get good acoustics though. The band played their own songs. The band got paid for playing. The venue made money at the door (though, probably far more at the bar…) and I had a good night out. Everyone is happy. Total involvement of copyright there? Well, the venue requires a license* to have live bands playing anyway and that’s it.
Now before anyone jumps in, I’m not saying this is a solution for every artist on the planet! I’m saying that clearly there are many cases where art will continue to be made, because for them copyright is, at best, irrelevant. So the “art doesn’t get done” argument simply doesn’t fly.
*(PRS? PPL? I always mix the licenses up. Good job I’m not in charge of compliance!)
…well before we put you in charge of the laws and eliminate copyright: can I ask you what is the solution for every artist on the planet? How many artists have you surveyed? What is the general consensus, do they want to keep copyright or not?
At the moment copyright is a pretty universal solution that I, as a photographer, could choose to opt out of if I so wish.
As I understand it: under your regime I’ve got two options: try and find a new business model that will hopefully work to make me money, or stop doing photography and stop creating art.
Do I understand you correctly?
Why on earth would I want to support that?
As a photographer, what business model do you believe I should adopt and make money? At the moment its hard enough as it is! You want to give me less protection under the law?
Sure you can. My business consultancy rates are 500 GBP per day, minimum 2 months. You hiring?
I’m sure they mostly want to keep it!
No, you can’t. If you want to use someone else’s photographs you need their permission.
“Regime”? I like your continual suggestions that removing restrictions on people makes me a control freak. 
I know a couple of photographers who have to go out and find work all the time. They get paid for specific photography jobs rather than sitting at home waiting for a royalty cheque, even though I’m sure they’d prefer to spend all their time on artistic shots rather than covering someone’s wedding. Maybe you could try the same?
I doubt you would. I’m sure you’re quite happy that restrictions be placed on everyone on the planet just to make it easier for you to make money.
Get a job?
Well, I’m against copyright and patents, but I support trademarks. However, there actually isn’t any reason, now I think of it, that you couldn’t simply uniquely digitally sign each item. I don’t think you’d need augmented reality equipment to authenticate it; any smart phone could do the job…
…blatant glib disregard for my question noted.
As expected: you don’t have an answer: you are simply spouting theory and making stuff up. I’m not the one proposing we eliminate copyrights: that, if I am not mistaken, would be you.
So before we put you in charge of the laws and eliminate copyright: can I ask you what is the solution for every artist on the planet?
And if you can’t even begin to answer this question, and I suspect you won’t even come close to trying to answer it, why should we take your posting seriously? The elimination of copyright will never happen, because those proposing the elimination of copyright can not and will not answer questions when put to them. Instead, they will spout statements such as “Get a job?” and consider their argument done.
For a cite: see phaemon’s response to my question.
Sure we do. But its not just artists that would be affected by the removal of copyright. Stock photographers? You’ve just put them all out of work. Spec shooters? Well in order to sell on spec they have to display their images, and once they are displayed, without the protection of copyright the images can simply be taken. So goodbye spec shooters.
Of course I can. Do you really not know that much about how copyright works? If I choose to release my work under creative commons or grant my copyright to someone else, I can do that. I have control. I can choose to give it away if I so choose. What you are suggesting would take away those controls.
Your the one who wants to take away my right to do what I like with what I create. Why do you want to take away my right to do what I like with what I create?
Oddly enough, thats exactly what I do. I shoot events, portraits and weddings, and sell a little bit of art on the side. Your proposed changes do not only affect the “art” portion of my business, but the events, portraits and weddings side as well. I get paid for specific photography jobs and do not sit at home waiting for a royalty cheque.
When you asked your photography friends if they would like to see the end of copyright, what did they say? If you haven’t asked them yet, would you like to, and then report back to us? Do you seriously think that eliminating copyright would not affect your friends businesses?
With the elimination of copyright, you make my job harder. For example I won’t be able to post any portfolio images on my website. I would have to take down all my images of Flickr and Facebook. My website would have to become password protected. The ability to effectively market my product would be substantially reduced.
Why are you against free enterprise?
I love it how you redefine the situation to make it seem like as a copyright holder I’m doing something evil.
I take a picture. I have copyright on it. That means you can’t sell it and make money off it.
I don’t see the problem with that. Can you explain why you should have the right to make money of my photo?
See?
I have a job thank you very much: the same job as your photographer friends doing, as far as I can tell, the very same things. Have you spoken to your photographer friends yet and told them that you want to take away their livelihood?
Are you serious? I thought that my response would allow you to work it out, but since it clearly hasn’t:
It is not my responsibility to provide you and everyone else on the planet with a business plan. The fact that copyright makes it easier for you to make money does not in and of itself justify the law.
Is that clear enough?
Yeah, that’s right. Massive industry lobbying will have no effect on keeping copyright in existence, it’s all down to whether or not you like the answers I give on the SDMB. :dubious:
Wow! You’re psychic! How did you know that text was there?!
If that service is no longer required, then why would you want to prolong it?
Get a contract. Alternatively, only give samples with watermarks. Did those solutions really not occur to you?
I clearly know more about it than you. You cannot choose to ignore the copyright on someone else’s work. That’s what I referred to.
I’m not suggesting taking away any control of what you can do. I’m just suggesting taking away your control of what others can do.
Really? You don’t have an agreement in advance for those events? Why not?
No, but I’ve discussed it with musicians. None of them agree with me. They all see copyright as a good thing. I suspect the photographers would be exactly the same.
You can batch watermark, resize and do lots of stuff to your images with ImageMagick. If you ask in GQ I’ll give you some examples of usage.
I’m not sure a government enforced temporary monopoly is a shining example of “free enterprise”.
You’re controlling what other people can do with information they have in their possession. I see that as a bad thing.
My photographer friends get paid when they shoot a wedding. Copyright doesn’t come into the equation.
“Selling well” is not the same as being a “bestseller”. A knock-off publisher would republish any book they could turn a profit on, i.e. any book that’s not an outright flop. Most books that are published now aren’t bestsellers. They sell a few 10’s of thousands of copies, enough to break even and turn a profit for the publisher.
Copyright was irrelevant because the band had another way of controlling access to their performance – the fee at the door. As I said previously in the thread, without copyright professional art would still thrive, but in controlled in controlled venues. Want to see a copy of a movie that not a shaky bootleg? Go to a movie theater. Want to play a videogame that’s more complicated than a downloadable Flash app? Go to an arcade. Copyright is what allows a wide variety of art to be available to consumers in the home. Remove it, and the show will move indoors where you can charge an admission fee.
How will they know which ones those are? They have to wait and see from sales figures. And then they’re betting that it wasn’t just a flash in the pan but that the book will have sustained interest. Surely easier and more profitable to simply target the bestseller list?
The government creates and enforces ALL property rights. Free enterprise is impossible without the government assigning control over different objects and organizations to specific individuals.
OK, so we’re agreed that removal of copyright wouldn’t make it impossible for artists to make a living, full stop. It would make it more difficult for some. Yes?
That’s a bad example. If a movie is a success at the box-office, then why not release a good copy on DVD? Not only do you have the advantage of being first to market (timed for Christmas or something) but you also have all the cash you’ve already made from the box-office to finance it! Of course, good quality copies would shortly follow, so you’d need to keep your price low. Win for consumers!
Actually, computer games in general are the one area of copyright that I can’t think of a business model for. Except MMORGs. And I hate MMORGs. 
To an extent, something already more drastic is happening. There are musicians now who, once they’ve built up a loyal following, refuse to let new works of theirs be recorded or broadcast, and perform them only in strictly controlled venues with astronomical ticket prices.
Yes, there will be some professional artists left, but many, many fewer people will be able to make their living as artists, which means (1) a lot less art available to the public and much of the best art restricted to the wealthy, and (2) generally, a decline in the general quality of art available, since fewer artists are able to spend the bulk of their time developing their art.
The remainder of artists will rely on strict contracting. If you think that click-wrap and shrink-wrap contracts are onerous now, watch out. Everything you get your hands on will be controlled by contracts. It won’t really be a freer world than exists now.
The fact that it wouldn’t kill off art entirely doesn’t mean that it wouldn’t be a tremendous blow to most professional artists. Professional art would retreat into controlled venues like arcades, theaters, and theme parks. All that would be available publicly would be the equivalent of fanfic – stuff produced by talented amateurs in their spare time and given away for free.
Because you only have a few days to make money before knock-offs start appearing and your sales crater. Better to keep it off the market and periodically re-release it in controlled venues. Disney successfully used this business model for years with their animated features.
I would argue that that is, in fact, largely the business model that we have right now.
I buy books and go see movies based on what the author/director/actors have done in the past. I don’t know what I’m getting with a creative work, for the most part, until I’ve already paid for and experienced part of it. Yes, you can read reviews and listen to friends, but those pale in comparison to trusting your own experience with the artist’s former work. I buy media because I accept the social contract that I should support artists I like so they keep doing what they do. Switching things around so that there’s a direct relationship between my paying for work and that work getting done seems even better to me. It makes the link even clearer, and the economics more efficient, too, since people who are willing to pay a smaller amount than others can still contribute.
And the current state of technology related to piracy is that pretty much anyone who wants to get a creative work for free can do so. The commons are already tragically open.
Though normally people who pay up front for something can expect to receive their product or service in a timely matter. Do you want this to happen for art? Suppose 100,000 people pony up $10 to have a musician create a new album. But the artist is in a creative rut, and even though everyone was expecting an album this year he doesn’t release one for another 5. Do people just take their money back whenever they want? Should the artist feel pressured to release unpolished work just to meet a deadline? The artist doesn’t just have a few people that he reports to like a typical employee at a company - he’s accountable to thousands! Not to mention if something is a flop, you’ll often hear about it through reviews - no such possibility with pre-payment.
Removal of copyrights would largely turn payment to the artist into donations, as anyone who is willing to pay more for an “official” copy of something might as well just donate directly to the creator. Publishing companies would have very little incentive to negotiate any sort of terms with the creator as a result, as the value of having the “creator endorsed copy” is nowhere near the value of exclusive rights.
Removal of patents would surely just cause companies to be extremely protective of IP as everything becomes a trade-secret - do people actually think that this is better than the alternative?
Don’t photographers, you know, take photographs? Don’t painters paint? You guys are acting like you took a few pictures in college and now you’re trying to get rich selling prints.
Everybody seems to be ignoring the point I made earlier, which is that you’re bypassing the process in favor of the product. You put your photographs up online, not to sell prints, but to show people, “Hey, this is what I can do. You want me to take these kinds of pictures for you? Pay me for my services.” Copyright doesn’t need to come into play at all there. Same for paintings.
With movies, it’s similar to what phaemon said. Keep those bits private until you release at the box office, plus a first run of dvds. That nets a tidy profit and anyone who comes after will be competing with “free”. Sure, you can’t make money forever, but you can make money now. In order to continue making money, you have to continue making content. It’s the same as any other job. I’m an engineer and I don’t get paid for work I did in the past, except insofar as it influences new and repeat customers. I get paid to keep on engineering.
The distinction is between “artistic services” and “artistic products”. The latter will go by the wayside as an off-the-shelf money-making venture (though probably not to any extent more than they already have). And yes, the business will change. People will not be able to make money with older product-based business models, unless there really is a product made out of atoms. Some artists will make out better in such a world, some will make out worse or not make out at all. I hear buggy whip manufacturers had a hard time once too.
The good news is that – at least in the pure information realm – we’re already in a post-scarcity society. Can you imagine if you could reproduce and transport food, water and shelter as easily as bits? Would any of you complain about poor people in need “stealing” free food because some farmer didn’t get his royalty check?
And for what it’s worth, eliminating copyrights doesn’t necessarily include plagiarism. In such a world, people should be able to say “I made that, even if somebody else ripped it off”. If JK Rowling doesn’t like some piece of Harry Potter fan fiction, she doesn’t have to put her name on it. But that doesn’t mean she should be able to coerce people out of publishing it.
Yes, I believe she absolutely has the moral authority to stop it and should have the legal power to stop it. In fact, I think the U.S. is still backward compared to Europe when it comes to moral rights. Creators should have even more legal power than they do now to stop alterations of their works.
I believe those issues can be solved by the artist freely contracting with his fans. Maybe some artists will desire full control over their schedules and some won’t. Maybe some agreements will let you revoke your pledge at any time before release, and some will have a small period where you can, and some others will give no refunds ever. I would guess that there will be some standard terms that most people settle on, and that rather than a single huge payment for a large deliverable, most will have lots of mini-releases along the way.
Maybe, maybe not. Artists doing (inferior?) work under pressure to meet a deadline is hardly unique to the system I’m proposing.
The point is that all of these issues can be solved with existing contract law and technology. As long as you realize that the only monetization event that will occur is the initial release (not subsequent copies), there’s a workable framework that can grow up around that fact.
Yes, but this is balanced by the fact that the previous work is freely available. One way to think about it is that you’re effectively paying for the quality of the previous work. If a relatively unknown artist makes something amazing, his popularity will shoot up and he’ll get paid highly for the next work. If that one’s a flop, then he’ll get paid lower for his next work, and so on.
I agree. In my best estimation of how this would turn out, there would be no “official” copies of stuff. How could you even tell if the video file you’re watching is an “official” one?