140 000 (!) russian speaking authors are sharing their poems here:

http://stihi.ru/

You can read almost 4 000 000 poetic works for free. There are many talentful ones among them, let assume modestly 1%, but it gives 40 000 yet.

And here almost 50 000 prose writers (almost 500 000 works):

http://www.proza.ru/

And more than 2,3 millions artistic photos here, including those made by most respected professionals:

photosight.ru

There are web-sites for music and painting as well.

It’s impossible to earn money selling books or pictures or music without deceiving people that for-profit pieces are better than free ones. And if you worry about authors do improve living conditions of whole humankind giving more time for leisure and creativity, because every person has a need to practice art, it isn’t enough to give this opportunity to few commercial authors.

Enigma: I agree that it would prove useful to discuss how population growth affects the homogeneity of the market for expressive works. In fact, I think there’s an pretty good argument that more consumers leads to a less homogenous market, which empowers authors to price discriminate, which in turn offsets the increased competition (from new authors) that might otherwise decrease authors’ profits as population increases. But that’s little more than a hunch, for now.

But I think, Enigma, you underestimate the importance of focusing on one metric at a time. Only long after we’ve nailed down the effects of many different variables can we start to think about combining them. Even then, I don’t think you or anyone will ever be able to get the numbers necessary to quantify the efficiency of copyright policy.

Like you, Russell, I worry how government might muck up innovation. In fact, I’m trying to figure out the relationship between population growth and copyright in part to create a bulwark against the public choice pressures that so evidently warp copyright policy. If, as I think will prove the case, population growth pretty convincingly weakens the need for copyright, those who constantly clamor for more copyright rights will have a heavier burden of proof to bear.

While I of course agree that different expressive works have different qualities, Patrick, I don’t think that materially affects the gist of my argument. It suffices that, at the margin, works offered at little or no cost to the consumer can substitute for those for which, thanks to copyright protection, consumers must pay. As population growth provides more and more of the former sort of work, the need for the latter decreases. Thus the conclusion that, holding all else equal, growth in the number of authors renders copyright less necessary.

If marginal costs decrease sufficiently, not-for-profit works will find a broader audience. False. The potential is there, but there’s an implication that the reason these works aren’t being more widely enjoyed is one of cost and distribution obstacles. Perhaps the problem is a lack of interest in that body of work among those appreciative of art.

With more art produced, copyright is less relevant. False. Yes, copyright is not incentivizing the creation of those not seeking profit from it, but it will always motivate those who do seek to profit. I could produce twenty paintings a day but no one will buy them, and frankly no one will download them even if I digitize them and post them, because they’d likely be pretty poor. I’m not a painter. But if I did have talent in this area, and I faced a world where perfect reproductions of my paintings could be made and distributed at little or no cost, would I keep making them? Certainly not at the volume I could if I were earning a living from it. That is a loss to me, but also to culture.

Many artists are content giving away their works. True and false. Some are probably happy to never be renumerated, and those often will be ones who will never have a real chance to be whether we have copyright or not because their works won’t hold sufficient value to others. But many who start out giving away their works are clearly hoping that at some point they will catch on with the public. They further hope that when that happens they will be able to make money. Look at Matt Parker and Trey Stone of South Park as an example of people playing around with construction paper who made it big; I suspect they like being paid for their work.

The market treats all copyrighted goods equally, only distribution is a barrier. False. Personal taste drives the market for creative goods, and tastes vary from person to person. I never saw a single “American Pie” movie because they looked like a waste of my money, but I was clearly out of step with much of the US population on that one. What drives “consumption” (such a base word) of creative works is not simply their availability but their individual appeal to a particular consumer. Bottom line, as a population grows so will its artistic output, but that doesn’t mean that one particular output is substitutable with another.

My apologies for the length of this post.

I do want to add some thoughts about whether “markets are getting more homogenized or more differentiated”. As I have been observing copyright in Canada over the past few years I keep being reminded of my reading “The Innovators Dilemma”. I see much of the debate as a battle between incumbents who were focused on trying to treat knowledge as if it were tangible ( Jefferson Debate ), and innovators who are trying to harness some of the natural properties of knowledge to our collective benefit. The incumbents want “stronger”/longer copyright while the innovators want more flexible, transparent and balanced copyright (IE: Fair Use/Dealings expansion to protect follow-on creativity, more easily determined cultural recycling dates — term expiry, etc).

If copyright law protects the incumbents against the innovators, that will tend to centralize the means of production and distribution of creativity, while if the law protects the innovators from the incumbents, that will tend to allows for differentiation and competition.

I know I have largely disengaged from the major label music industry since 2000, and I feel the better for it both morally (I’m not supporting companies seeking to infringe our Information Technology property rights), artistically (I find the music far more interesting than what the majors are pushing on people), and economically (the innovators are harnessing modern methods of production, distribution and funding which reduce costs).

The question still remains: will governments allow for this benefit I am receiving as a music fan from these innovators, or will they legislate against it?

(Note: I’m only speaking of music in the above. I’m a software author and also benefit from more modern thinking on copyright).

I do want to add some thoughts about whether “markets are getting more homogenized or more differentiated”. As I have been observing copyright in Canada over the past few years I keep being reminded of my reading “The Innovators Dilemma”. I see much of the debate as a battle between incumbents who were focused on trying to treat knowledge as if it were tangible ( Jefferson Debate ), and innovators who are trying to harness some of the natural properties of knowledge to our collective benefit. The incumbents want “stronger”/longer copyright while the innovators want more flexible, transparent and balanced copyright (IE: Fair Use/Dealings expansion to protect follow-on creativity, more easily determined cultural recycling dates — term expiry, etc).

If copyright law protects the incumbents against the innovators, that will tend to centralize the means of production and distribution of creativity, while if the law protects the innovators from the incumbents, that will tend to allows for differentiation and competition.

I know I have largely disengaged from the major label music industry since 2000, and I feel the better for it both morally (I’m not supporting companies seeking to infringe our Information Technology property rights), artistically (I find the music far more interesting than what the majors are pushing on people), and economically (the innovators are harnessing modern methods of production, distribution and funding which reduce costs).

The question still remains: will governments allow for this benefit I am receiving as a music fan from these innovators, or will they legislate against it?

(Note: I’m only speaking of music in the above. I’m a software author and also benefit from more modern thinking on copyright).

We simply have not had a post that has “cast a light” on this issue. Tom, I think, has “broken the ice” on this issue. Integrating the sociological effects of population on technological issues will lead to a more holistic analysis.

While some of us advocate technological laws that favor the consumer, the dynamics of increasing population make this harder to accomplish as governments impose new laws to regulate how persons interact in a complex society where everyone is in everyone’s face and everyone is seeking to utilize (demand) ever decreasing resources such as water and unallocated air wave spectrum.

First, it seems to focus on one metric (population size) inordinately, where as others (perhaps the amount of free time is more important than population)

Second, as markets get larger in terms of population, authors that found it impossible to monetize their work should find it rather easier to do no (see the Long Tail)

Third, more important to your argument, would be the homogenization of markets, which would lead to larger audiences but would ultimately dimnish or eliminate the effect of the long tail. We have yet to see if markets are getting more homogenized or more differentiated.

So, for a postulation that relies on metrics, it seems that more dimensions need to be added, and also actually numbers and modeling needs to play a part…

If you believe that an artistic product can be clearly defined and differentiated, then a “strong” copyright law may be in order. By “strong”, I do not mean the aggrandizement of property rights by the content producers at the expense of the consumer’s right to fair use.

The other viewpoint is that artistic products, in many cases, can not be clearly defined and differentiated. We are dealing with shades of gray. We have tons of stories based on boy meets girl. Over the years this basic theme has morphed into uncountable variations. Given the inability to have a clear property line, copyright law should be limited to blatant violations.

Finally, let us not forget that the purpose of copyright law is to provide a limited term monopoly to foster the progress of the arts and sciences. A “strong” copyright law would have a chilling effect on progress by stifling competition. Free markets should not have laws that protect the revenue stream of a content producer.

Arguably, the existence of more composers, even if motived by profit and not by the love of the art ) will produce more great works than a single composer. what do you think?

So what about the quality of the product? It is not the same to have one composer writing several average songs, when what the public might want is that truly great song.

Arguably, the existence of more composers, even if motived by profit and not by the love of the art ) will produce more great works than a single composer. what do you think?

Don has also brought up a very good concept. Again, I enjoyed reading your post and it has given me more concepts to dwell on.

In the US, we have lots of expressive works, and many high-quality expressive works, because Congress chooses to subsidize their production with copyright law. If copyright law changes, some of the labor and capital that now goes into making expressive works would go into other things, just as changes in the sugar quota system would reduce the size of the high fructose corn syrup industry.

When people talk about reforming agriculture subsidies, one of the possibilities is the idea of replacing subsidies on production with payments for providing public goods, such as wetlands that provide natural water filtration and flood control. Likewise, instead of simply removing or scaling back copyright, another possibility would be to redirect the subsidy more efficiently. The First Amendment doesn’t let Congress put an outright ban on porn and violent content, but it could reduce the subsidy that it offers them by scaling back copyright on them to a year or two.

In the US, we have lots of expressive works, and many high-quality expressive works, because Congress chooses to subsidize their production with copyright law. If copyright law changes, some of the labor and capital that now goes into making expressive works would go into other things, just as changes in the sugar quota system would reduce the size of the high fructose corn syrup industry.

When people talk about reforming agriculture subsidies, one of the possibilities is the idea of replacing subsidies on production with payments for providing public goods, such as wetlands that provide natural water filtration and flood control. Likewise, instead of simply removing or scaling back copyright, another possibility would be to redirect the subsidy more efficiently. The First Amendment doesn’t let Congress put an outright ban on porn and violent content, but it could reduce the subsidy that it offers them by scaling back copyright on them to a year or two.