drewdevault.com

Sustainable-creativity-post-copyright.md (5618B)

---
title: Sustainable creativity in a world without copyright
date: 2021-12-23
outputs: [html, gemtext]
---
I don't believe in copyright. I argue that we need to get rid of copyright, or
at least dramatically reform it. [The public domain has been stolen from us][0],
and I want it back. Everyone reading this post has grown up in a creative world
defined by capitalism, in which adapting and remixing works — a
fundamental part of the creative process — is illegal. The commons is
dead, and we suffer for it. But, this is all we've ever known. It can be
difficult to imagine a world without copyright.
[0]: /2020/08/24/Alice-in-Wonderland.html
When I present my arguments on the subject, the most frequent argument I hear in
response is something like the following: "artists have to eat, too". The answer
to this argument is so mind-bogglingly obvious that, in the absence of
understanding, it starkly illuminates just how successful capitalism has been in
corrupting a broad human understanding of empathy. So, I will spell the answer
out: why do we have a system which will, for any reason, deny someone access to
food? How unbelievably cruel is a system which will let someone starve because
they cannot be productive within the terms of capitalism?
My argument is built on the more fundamental understanding that the access to
fundamental human rights such as food, shelter, security, and healthcare are not
contingent on their ability to be productive under the terms of capitalism. And
I emphasize the "terms of capitalism" here deliberately: how much creativity is
stifled because it cannot be expressed profitably? The system is not just cruel,
but it also limits the potential of human expression, which is literally the
only thing that creative endeavours are concerned with.
The fact that the "starving artist" is such a common trope suggests to us that
artists aren't putting food on the table under the copyright regime, either.
Like in many industries under capitalism, artists are often not the owners of
the products of their labor. Copyright protects the rights holder, not the
author. The obscene copyright rules in the United States, for example, are not
doing much benefit for the artist when the term ends 70 years after their death.
Modern copyright law was bought, paid for, and written by corporate copyright
owners, not artists. What use is the public domain to anyone when something
published today cannot be legally remixed by even our great-great-grandchildren?
Assume that we address both of these problems: we create an empathetic system
which never denies a human being of their fundamental right to live, and we
eliminate copyright. Creativity will thrive under these conditions. How?
Artists are free to spend their time at their discretion under the new
copyright-free regime. They can devote themselves to their work without concern
for whether or not it will sell, opening up richer and more experimental forms
of expression. Their peers will be working on similar terms, freeing them to
more frequent collaborations of greater depth. They will build upon each other's
work to create a rich commons of works and derivative works.
There's no escaping the fact that derivation and remixing is a fundamental part
of the creative process, and that copyright interferes with this process. Every
artist remixes the works of other artists: this is how art is made. Under the
current copyright regime, this practice ranges from grey-area to illegal, and
because money makes right, rich and powerful artists aggressively defend their
work, extracting rent from derivative works, while shamelessly ripping off works
from less powerful artists who cannot afford to fight them in court. Eliminating
copyright rids us of this mess and acknowledges that remixing is part of the
creative process, freeing artists to build on each other's work.
This is not a scenario in which artists stop making money, or in which the world
grinds to a halt because no one is incentivized to work anymore. The right to
have your fundamental needs met does not imply that we must provide everyone
with a luxurious lifestyle. If you want a nicer house, more expensive food, to
go out to restaurants and buy fancy clothes — you need to work for it. If
you want to commercialize your art, you can sell CDs and books, prints or
originals, tickets to performances, and so on. You can seek donations from
your audience through crowdfunding platforms, court wealthy patrons of the arts,
or take on professional work making artistic works like buildings and art
installations for public and private sector. You could even get a side job
flipping burgers or take on odd jobs to cover the costs of materials like paint
or musical instruments — but not your dinner or apartment. The money you
earn stretches longer, not being eaten away by health insurance or rent or
electricity bills. You invest your earnings into your art, not into your
livelihood.
Copyright is an absurd system. Ideas do not have intrinsic value. Labor has
value, and goods have value. Ideas are not scarce. By making them artificially
so, we sabotage the very process by which ideas are made. Copyright is
illegitimate, and we can, and ought to, get rid of it.
---
Aside: I came across a couple of videos recently that I thought were pretty
interesting and relevant to this topic. Check them out:
- [Everything is a Remix Part 1 (2021), by Kirby Ferguson](https://redirect.invidious.io/watch?v=MZ2GuvUWaP8)
- [The Art Market is a Scam (And Rich People Run It)](https://redirect.invidious.io/watch?v=ZZ3F3zWiEmc)