Slashdot Mirror
Doctorow Says Google & Amazon Stifle Progress
An anonymous reader writes "Google and Amazon are 'a danger to everyone involved in the creative industries' because they act as the intermediary between creators and audiences, says Boing Boing editor Cory Doctorow. He warns that the corporate giants will 'only fear competition from other established giants ... companies whose character as gatekeepers of video distribution and discovery won't be substantially different.' The solution, he says, is to use copyrights to lower the cost of entering the market. 'For so long as copyright holders think like short-timers, seeking a quick buck instead of a healthy competitive marketplace, they're doomed to work for their gatekeepers,' he says."
No, that's exactly the problem. Maybe it's not obvious to those trying to make the money, but it is to the people who copyright is supposed to benefit, ie. us.
Copyright is supposed to grant an author limited time to cover the costs of production. If they can make a profit during that time, good for them. If they can't, tough. The way he speaks encourages the conception that holding a copyright constitutes an income stream, he treats it as a given. It was never intended for that purpose, and this is why there is so much trouble with it currently.
Copyright holders ARE short timers. If they want to benefit from copyright, they should produce new works, not rely on a never ending stream of income from old works. If they can't cover their costs sufficiently from a copyrighted work, that is not a failure of the copyright system, it is a failure on their part to produce a popular work or to market it correctly. They should not be able to extend the length of copyright just because they haven't made enough money yet.
How much does it cost to live for a year ? Let's call it X. If it takes you a year to create a work, then that figure X plus publishing costs(Y) are all the recompense you can reasonably expect to recoup from copyright. If you make X+Y+2 or 2(X+Y) then you're doing well. But once you have recouped X+Y copyright has fulfilled its purpose. Maybe that takes a year, maybe it takes 5 years but in any case you should be working on your next creation. If you run it right and your works are popular you end up with an income stream. If you sit on your arse, expecting copyright to make things turn out all right, you will be disappointed. Similarly, if you expect one work to cover X+Y before you start the next work, you will be disappointed. No-one in the world has the luxury of sitting back like that. I don't do a weeks work then think I can now have a week off. You have to build a margin of financial safety before you can interrupt your work. Expecting copyright to guarantee that margin is not a sound business plan.
If you write a song, say it takes you a day. How much is a person reasonably due for a days work ? $1000 sound fair ? If you sing that song and get paid $50 for each performance, it will take 20 performances to cover the costs of creating that song. If you record it and it sells 2000 copies (@ $0.99), is it still reasonable to claim you are owed recompense for the creation ? Especially since after the recording is done you essentially don't do any more work on that song. Now lets allow you to claim money for life plus 50 years on that song. Is that anywhere near reasonable ?
I suggest it isn't.
Reform copyright, and let's get those artists back to work !