You appear to be assuming that the only way artists can be incentivised to produce creative works is if the public’s cultural liberty to share and build upon those works is suspended, i.e. that no-one can make copies without permission.

A monopoly can certainly be lucrative to those who are granted it, but monopolies are a net cost to society. They are a redistribution of wealth with an expensive overhead in terms of policing. When the number to be policed is small this overhead can be negligible (though the monopoly still impacts market efficiency and suppresses cultural improvement and evolution), but when the number increases from a few hundred printers to a billion, then you’re defending a one foot high sandcastle from a ten foot tide (instead of an inch high wave).

It is a mistake to believe that the commercial exploitation of a monopoly (the artist’s suspension of their audience’s liberty) is the only means by which the artist can be compensated by their audience. You should try an exchange in a free market some time: art for money, money for art.

That’s not true. You’re making a mistake reminiscent of record labels and other copyright fanatics – only looking at half of the equation. The full equation is:
cultural value of creation = amount created * accessibility of created material.
You erroneously disregard the first term, while copyright fanatics disregard the second term. While you correctly point out that stronger copyright reduces the accessibility of created material, you miss the fact that copyright, when applied correctly (and within limits), increases the amount created. This is thus an optimization problem in two dependent variables; we want to maximize the product (mathematical product, not “corporate product”), not merely the second term; if copyright is too weak (or nonexistent) the product drops because the first term is too low, and if copyright is too strong the product drops because the second term is too low. We’re at the point where the second term is too low, and the total value of creation is thus less than optimal.

The only study I know of that tried to location the maximal point concluded that 14 years was the optimal copyright term to maximize total value.

Copyright is not the problem; abuse/perversion of copyright and corporate greed are the problem. We need copyright reform, not abolition.

Agreed 100%
Not to mention the fact that copyright apologists have been systematically violating THEIR side of the deal for decades, with every (retroactive) extension of copyright term. They’ve been ROBBING the public domain for decades, so it’s no wonder that the public at large feel very little if any uneasiness about violating copyright en masse, on a global scale.

Thanks for calling “bullshit” on that, Crosbie.

You can’t both have effective copyright laws and laws that foster creativity and innovation. They are a contradiction in terms. The reproduction monopoly suppresses cultural exchange in order to both control it and direct revenue to printers. Copyright does not foster creativity or reward artists (as the artists are now discovering). The printers will pay artists as little as possible – as all are only too aware (bar the few artists that become famous).

William Patry’s choice is:
Copyright: Wealthy printers trying to avoid paying artists, and vigorously persecuting the public for making unauthorised copies.
No copyright: Break even printers, with artists instead rewarded by their audiences, and the public’s cultural liberty restored.

The best change in copyright law is its abolition.
It is the absence of copyright law that best furthers creativity and innovation.

We’ve done without copyright for millions of years, why did we need it in the last 300? To enable the state to control the press, by granting the press the privilege of controlling reproduction. Nothing to do with creativity. Everything to do with protecting the state and the press it controls and favours.

And now the people are the press, and the state along with its favoured corporations would control the people.

It’s certainly a sticky situation, but nothing to do with creativity and innovation.

The cultural suppression of a reproduction monopoly vs the cultural liberty and artistic freedom without it.

Come on Bill, you can’t have it both ways. Fur lined manacles are not an option (except for masochists).