Noah: I hesitate to predict what entrepreneurs would come up with in the absence of copyright. I’ll note, though, that back in the day when English authors enjoyed no U.S. copyrights, they would make money by selling serialized versions of their novels to U.S. magazines, and by giving readings. Dickens fairly well killed himself touring the U.S., so greedy was he for the generous revenues he thereby earned. Also, as I noted to Enigma, ARM could prove useful.

I don’t claim to know all the different ways that authors could support their art. I identified a few: day job, inheritance, grants (from patrons or government), academia (I would include employment with groups like the Cato institute in this category, but perhaps it fits more with grants?). Income from selling copies is the only source that would directly correlate with success in the marketplace (i.e., what people will buy). What other sources of income have I overlooked? And what other sources would ensure that we can continue to have a world with plenty of works by Elmore Leonard, Jackie Collins, etc.? (I am assuming that no university would employ this type of author if it were not for their market success, which might present a problem of circularity in the absence of copyright.)

I agree that authors relie on copyright, but it is notable that they do NOT rely on the DMCA the same way the music industry does. This is because an electronic copy of a book does not have many of the properties of a physical book.

Thus, above it has been shown the artists, authors, musicians do not need the DMCA, and I would add to that list architects, as another producer of cultural goods that does not relie on DMCA.

So just who does need the DMCA?

The owners of these works, the big music companies, that’s who.

So while I agree that I want people to be able to make a living from writing, I’m far from convinced that they have some “natural right” to do so.

I note that Noah does qualify it with “from creating a successful work”, which is definitely better than what you frequently hear.

Oh, and Noah should check out Baen books – where they’ve shown increases in book sales as a result of giving away free electronic copies of works.

From my perspective, a copyright holder should not be artificially protected by regulations that protect obsolete business models, the copyright holder does not have a right to limit the natural property right of the consumer, and copyright is a limited right, not a perpetual right.

Is that so?

As you mentioned, painters still have the original that they can sell. But with paintings, it is the original that has the greatest market value. And most musicians have always (since before and including Mozart) made most of their money from performance and giving lessons. But with authors, it is the copy and the copy only that provides money for the work (unless they are to replace copy income with grants and professorships).

Not that copyright doesn’t have problems, but I do believe that authors should have a “natural right” to be able to earn a living from creating a successful work.

I was wondering because it didn’t seem to jive with the rest of the post. And all the while it was me not reading carefully.

Thanks for pointing that out, Tom.

No.

“and misattributed copying.”

Yes.