There should be no copyright on digital goods
A lot of artists have been trying to expand copyright law and custom recently, arguing that unauthorized derivate works (AI generated art) should not be permitted. Personally, I believe that AI art should be allowed, because the benefits to society outweigh the harms to artists. I would go further, though-- I don't think anything digital should be copyrightable at all. In my ideal legal world, you write a book, you can control who sells physical copies of it, but digital copies you can't do anything about. Same for movies, games, pictures, everything. Anyone can use your characters to write new stories. It's a complete free-for-all.
The obvious response to this is "why would anyone then create art, if they weren't getting paid for it?" The implication here is that the creation of new art would dry up, leaving only increasingly bad copies and amateurish fanfiction.
The obvious response to this is "why would anyone then create art, if they weren't getting paid for it?" The implication here is that the creation of new art would dry up, leaving only increasingly bad copies and amateurish fanfiction.
I disagree that no new art will be created. I think plenty of art will be created by people who get no financial reward for it. I think people will still create and sell physical art. And I think fanfiction can be admirable art.
However, it does seem a shame that no one will be able to devote all their time to their art, so that we get more of it. And that's why I propose the Kickstarter-paid model. It works like this. Our novelist gives his first three novellas away for free. They become popular, because people like them, share them, riff off them. He then says "I'd like to write another book, a longer one this time set in ancient Egypt, but I don't have time because I have to work for a living. So here's a Kickstarter. If it raises $100,000, I'll quit my job and spend the next year writing the novel. If not, I'll keep working until it does."
Once he gets the money, that's it: future digital copies will be free to copy. He can still sell them if he wants, but it won't be illegal to copy them for free. If he wants more money, he's got to start another Kickstarter.
Movies would work the same way. They would have to make their money through merchandising, theaters, and Kickstarters, because once a copy was shown on any digital media, it would be fair game for anyone to copy.
This way, the artist gets paid to create, but the world also gets far more free stuff. It is a better system for society as a whole. This means that the poor, who previously couldn't afford any art, now have a huge abundance available to them. The rich get the added benefit that they can cause to come into existence the things they want to see with a contribution.
However, it does seem a shame that no one will be able to devote all their time to their art, so that we get more of it. And that's why I propose the Kickstarter-paid model. It works like this. Our novelist gives his first three novellas away for free. They become popular, because people like them, share them, riff off them. He then says "I'd like to write another book, a longer one this time set in ancient Egypt, but I don't have time because I have to work for a living. So here's a Kickstarter. If it raises $100,000, I'll quit my job and spend the next year writing the novel. If not, I'll keep working until it does."
Once he gets the money, that's it: future digital copies will be free to copy. He can still sell them if he wants, but it won't be illegal to copy them for free. If he wants more money, he's got to start another Kickstarter.
Movies would work the same way. They would have to make their money through merchandising, theaters, and Kickstarters, because once a copy was shown on any digital media, it would be fair game for anyone to copy.
This way, the artist gets paid to create, but the world also gets far more free stuff. It is a better system for society as a whole. This means that the poor, who previously couldn't afford any art, now have a huge abundance available to them. The rich get the added benefit that they can cause to come into existence the things they want to see with a contribution.
Here's a quote by Bill Willingham, author of Fables, who put his work in the public domain:
Q: So you no longer own Fables?
Bill: Incorrect. I still own 100% of Fables. But now, every man, woman, and child in the world, along with anyone who’s ever born until the end of time, also owns 100% of Fables. It’s not a property divided among all of us, it’s a property infinitely multiplied among all of us. Pretty cool, huh? Every person owns Fables-in-whole, and can decide for himself what, if anything, he wants to do with it. Kind of like a secular miracle of the loaves and the fishes, metaphorically speaking, of course. No matter how many partake, there’s enough for everybody.
Comments