> If copyright is revoked, many creators stop creating, and society is made poorer. Copyright directly enriches creators, and indirectly enriches society.
You are assuming that copyright does significantly increase the number of new works created, and that the labor employed to create these extra works would not be more valuably spent on other pursuits--a common problem with subsidies. You are also ignoring the cost of copyright to society, including the cost of enforcement, the undermining of respect for the law, the impact to the government's claims of legitimacy, the loss of potential derivative works, and the loss of works whose copyright holders wish to suppress or simply fail to consider valuable enough to preserve. The cost in liberty alone is enough to render the whole enterprise a net loss.
Villa: Pushing back against licensing and the permission culture
Posted Jan 30, 2013 23:28 UTC (Wed) by tjc (subscriber, #137)
[Link]
> You are also ignoring the cost of copyright to society, including the cost of enforcement, the undermining of respect for the law, the impact to the government's claims of legitimacy, the loss of potential derivative works, and the loss of works whose copyright holders wish to suppress or simply fail to consider valuable enough to preserve. The cost in liberty alone is enough to render the whole enterprise a net loss.
You're assuming that the "cost in liberty alone is enough to render the whole enterprise a net loss." I'm assuming that copyright is a net gain to society. Since neither one of us can gather enough data to come to a rational conclusion, we can't prove which position is right. The best we can do is compare societies that enforce copyright to those that don't, and see what kind of results that are getting, assuming that all other factors are equal (and they're not).