Reply #24: Hmm, I work in the creative field and I see the OP's intent

[anigbrowl]

I also see flaws in the proposal, in that it some provisions are an open invitation to moral hazard - but then soa re some of those in existing copyright law. I would argue that the flaws in the current model of IP ownership are part of what makes it hard for an artist to get paid, especially if they are producing work that is outside the commercial mainstream and thus of limited or no interest to mainstream publishers.

I've been in multiple situations, ie being paid fairly for my work but also exploited and/or screwed outright, and I've played a bit of hardball myself in some other circumstances. I sympathize with your point of view, because most people outside of the arts don't realize just how unforgiving and competitive it can be as a career; I have often had to explain to people that it's sort of like the business world on steroids, with artists as entrepreneurs and publishers as manufacturers, and normal business/product life cycles which last months or years compressed down to periods as short as a few weeks.

On the other hand, there are huge, huge flaws with the existing model, and the more rigidly ownership is interpreted in defiance of technology which accelerates the distribution and multiplication of IP, the harder it becomes to make money from it. One pragmatic example would the recent decision of Apple and other publisher/distributors to abandon DRM and other kinds of software-based copy protection because the costs of implementing and enforcing it were lowering revenue for both themselves and the creators. To use a hardware analogy, if the cost of the packaging is higher than that of the item inside, nobody benefits - consumers, designers, or distributors.

To give a practical example of successful copying in action, back in the 90s I got into an obscure style of techno music called Goa Trance (later, psychedelic trance). When I first came across it, it was by listening to a friend's cassette tape. I became an avid fan and pretty soon I had 8 or 10 cassettes with about 12 hours of music, almost none of which had any track listings or anything else, because they were copies-of-copies. Obviously, none of the artists involved got any revenue or even name recognition from this.

Now, I wasn't awash in money at the time so cassette copies were good for me, but a bigger issue was that I simply had no idea where to get hold of this music on vinyl or CD. You couldn't just walk into the local record store (large and corporate or small and friendly) and just ask for some 'Man with no name' or 'x-dream' or 'growling mad scientists' tracks. This stuff was being put out by little micro-labels that would press maybe 5000 copies of a 12-inch single *at most*.

As time went on and I attended more rave parties, I got more and more into it - and eventually I did find a store that sold the stuff, and where the people behind the counter knew what I was referring to...which led to me becoming a part-time DJ, and over the next few years spending maybe $3-4000 on CDs and vinyl (which is more than most people spend in a decade). Eventually it led me into buying keyboards and suchlike and making my own music, which led me into becoming a recording engineer, and eventually into doing sound for movies and TV.

I don't really keep up with that genre of music any more (like many flavors of techno, it fractured and most of my favorite artists either moved into other genres, mainstreamed by adding vocals and doing more 'pop' styles, or got stuck in a musical rut). However, from starting out with bootlegging tapes from beach parties in India, I ended up pouring a LOT of money back towards the originators of this music, as well as contributing to both the local music scene by organizing non-profit parties and by teaching other people musical and engineering skills. I didn't really make it as a musician (for lack of both funds and raw talent), but I did write the signature tune for one of the longest-running US dance music radio shows.

So...don't assume that a more open attitude to IP law and ownership is necessarily bad for artists. Approached the right way, it can create new opportunities and support a more diverse range of work than existing commercial models.