I think we need to completely revisit the ownership model here. Kill copyright entirely. (I would vote for anyone-- up to and including Mike Pence-- who made this a major plank of their campaign)
We have at least one corner of the universe where we've defeated scarcity. We can't run out of music. Hell, we can't even run out of a specific recorded performance, if even the most trivial efforts of due-diligence backups are performed. We should be proud-- we're at least one step on the way towards Star Trek replicators and universal abundance.
But the current system is so tied to the idea of "markets" and "ownership" that only really make sense for scarce physical goods, that we ended up having to force everyone, under threat of law, to treat a limitless resource that's part of our shared cultural experience, like a rare physical widget that must be owned, sliced up, and sold under restrictive covenant.
We should be taking all the money going into the content business-- all the funds being spent on the production of movies, music, novels, art, potentially even software-- and use it to bankroll an enormous centralized endowment for the creative community.
This immediately silences all "but how will artists eat?" strawmen. Even if you're not a live-show performer or merchandising expert, you get paid by the endowment on a predictable stipend basis, rather than having to hope you can effectively monetize a package of "rights" while dealing with an industry full of middlemen out to rip you off.
This would ensure that many, many more artists can live their passion-- how many great but unknown bands could spend their lives touring, if we took the money that bankrolled Taylor Swift's tour and sliced it up into 50k-per-person-per-year grants? How many sculptors could we keep on the books for the price of one Anish Kapoor? It would also be interesting to compare efficiency of funds delivery-- replacing a bunch of for-profit publishers with a single cooperative or state-run entity probably results in more dollars actually reaching artists overall.
It also avoids the perverse incentives on the other side-- if you make one world-breaking hit, you can't ride it forever. Just because you sung White Christmas once doesn't mean you get out of ever having to work again. If we eliminate the opportunity to slice and subdivide "rights" to a work, then there's no incentive to hold back maximum utilization of it. Imagine the improved utility of modern content services if they can get legal access to all the things-- Netflix and Hulu would have to compete on the best infrastructure, UI and tooling, rather than "only we have Futurama".
I go in slightly different directions on both of your proposals. I think intellectual property in general should be eliminated, though I think copyright is a good olace to start. As for the artistic endowment, I think that the task of deciding what counts as an artistic endeavor is an intractable problem and that universal basic income is much more simple and equitable.
How would your endowment be distributed: who are the recipients and how is the money divided?
Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of abolishing copyright and funding art more directly but I also don't see the point in the goverment deciding what is and isn't art. At that point perhaps its better to ensure that everyone was a livable universal basic income and let people create art if they want to use their time to create art. And on top of that you can still have patronage / grants if you want specific types of art created more than they would otherwise be.
Music and other media are not fungible. I think this is a worm in the apple that dooms many market based arguments. However your idea of a creative endowment is intriguing and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Like the idea, but tangible arts like paintings or live tours are scarce, unlike digital media. So for these money should be going directly to the organizer (artist, sculpture, troupe, etc). For non-tangible mediums, an endowment would make sense (despite the bickering). I can see an incentive for artists to then produce tangible arts for the monetary rewards, but also our industry already is filled with negative incentives and bickering. Something new would be nice.
I'm thinking a stipend eliminates the need for "commercial success".
If your band tours to public parks or empty bars, you still get a living wage. If you crank out six paintings a month but they just line the halls of public libraries because nobody really wants to buy them, you can still live on the stipend.
More importantly, it eliminates the need to create that ownership right, and impede any "descarcification" tactics. Yes, those tangible things might be somewhat scarce, but if someone starts making posters of your paintings, or a recording of your concert goes viral, you both have no reason and no legal method to stop that from happening.
We have at least one corner of the universe where we've defeated scarcity. We can't run out of music. Hell, we can't even run out of a specific recorded performance, if even the most trivial efforts of due-diligence backups are performed. We should be proud-- we're at least one step on the way towards Star Trek replicators and universal abundance.
But the current system is so tied to the idea of "markets" and "ownership" that only really make sense for scarce physical goods, that we ended up having to force everyone, under threat of law, to treat a limitless resource that's part of our shared cultural experience, like a rare physical widget that must be owned, sliced up, and sold under restrictive covenant.
We should be taking all the money going into the content business-- all the funds being spent on the production of movies, music, novels, art, potentially even software-- and use it to bankroll an enormous centralized endowment for the creative community.
This immediately silences all "but how will artists eat?" strawmen. Even if you're not a live-show performer or merchandising expert, you get paid by the endowment on a predictable stipend basis, rather than having to hope you can effectively monetize a package of "rights" while dealing with an industry full of middlemen out to rip you off.
This would ensure that many, many more artists can live their passion-- how many great but unknown bands could spend their lives touring, if we took the money that bankrolled Taylor Swift's tour and sliced it up into 50k-per-person-per-year grants? How many sculptors could we keep on the books for the price of one Anish Kapoor? It would also be interesting to compare efficiency of funds delivery-- replacing a bunch of for-profit publishers with a single cooperative or state-run entity probably results in more dollars actually reaching artists overall.
It also avoids the perverse incentives on the other side-- if you make one world-breaking hit, you can't ride it forever. Just because you sung White Christmas once doesn't mean you get out of ever having to work again. If we eliminate the opportunity to slice and subdivide "rights" to a work, then there's no incentive to hold back maximum utilization of it. Imagine the improved utility of modern content services if they can get legal access to all the things-- Netflix and Hulu would have to compete on the best infrastructure, UI and tooling, rather than "only we have Futurama".