points us to an excellent article at Eurozine, by Felix Stalder, about the myths of copyright today and how weaker copyright actually can increase cultural output
. It starts out by showing that the standard claims behind copyright are simply not true. It's based on an assumption, implicit (and sometimes explicit) in almost all pro-copyright arguments, that copyright is the sole source
of income for content creators. But this is false.
This simple assumption, however, is incorrect. First, copyright as the basis of artists' income is just one of many cultural economic models, namely that in which the "first copy" receives substantial investment that has then to be recouped (and more) through the sale of specific usage rights (licenses) to the users of further copies. This model is by no means applied across all domains of culture and, even where it is, it generates extremely unequal incomes. By and large, copyright-centered business models generate blockbuster economies, in which very few people earn very substantial incomes while the great majority of producers receive little to nothing for their work. Thus, the argument that copyright generated income works well only for a few, highly visible artists and their supporting industries.
This is a point we've discussed before, but which often gets ignored. When you look at the historical evidence of monopolies, you see the same thing. While it can create a few giant businesses, it actually harms the wider market, decreases competition, and cuts out any chance of a "middle class" in the market. It's entirely "go big or go home." Culturally, we may be losing out in such a market, because your choices become limited mainly to the major blockbuster artists. If you remove, or weaken, copyright laws, you open up the opportunity for many more
artists to make a good living by employing other business models.
The article notes that, in fact, copyright "is simply not very relevant for many forms of cultural production." And for many areas of content, weak copyright protection likely increases output, because it lowers the "cost" of the raw materials (other parts of culture). But, on top of that, weaker copyright opens up all sorts of new opportunities. The article discusses things like YouTube's setup for monetizing videos, which simply creates tremendous new opportunities to make money where none would have been made before.
Given that most independent videos on YouTube would have received no revenue at all under the old copyright regime, the important thing to recognise is that it is possible to gain some revenue by providing free access to one's material. A such, it represents a functioning, if limited, commercial opportunity enabled by a weak copyright environment.
It also discusses totally new opportunities, like Flattr (of which we are a happy user -- which we'll be discussing more about soon) and Kickstarter. Basically, into the void new and interesting business models emerge (as some of us at Techdirt have been predicting for over a decade). And the nice thing about those new business models is that they rely less on gatekeepers
and more on people to support what they like, with more of the money going directly to the content creators. It may not create the same blockbusters (and even that I'm not sure I believe), but it creates a much wider spectrum of people who can make a good living. All in all, a great article.