Why do we want Copyright?

We want our society to flourish, but the system got rigged. Within the Jobs to be Done framework, our society “hired” the product of copyright protection laws to foster creativity and ensure the people that produce interesting works get properly rewarded. But arguably, the big players (record labels, Hollywood studios, publishing houses) have lobbied to extend and strengthen copyright laws far beyond their original intent. How does ensuring copyright rights for 100 years instead of 70 years foster more independent creators? It’s more about protecting Mickey Mouse™ royalties for big shareholders, rather than making sure that Subemployed Joe can break out of poverty.

Copyright protection was created in an age when distribution was costly, making it the choking point where value could be captured. Because the revenue margins of books, vynils, recording tape were high, the right-to-copy of a book was the legal artifact allowing only those distributors authorized by the creator to reap the rewards of creative works.

But for some decades now, dstribution of information has been very cheap, and the value of a meme (in the Richard Dawkins sense of the word) is a function of how repeatedly that meme appears on our thoughts. Big corporations call memes “valuable IP”. The Mona Lisa is one of the most valuable memes in the world; although nobody captures value out of it. The book I wrote when I was 10 years old, that not even my mom read, is probably one of the least valuable memes in the world. The character Yoda is very valuable, and copyright and rule of law combine so that The Walt Disney Company can benefit from having bought LucasFilms, enabling it to benefit from every sale of a Baby Yoda toy.

Distribution reinforces the recognition of memes, and thus, their value. By limiting copies, we limit value; if copyright laws would forbid you to even name Yoda without paying royalties, it would have no value.

How can we ensure that some of that value be captured by the creators without using copyright? What about the successive, and also important jobs of producing, distributing, or making a meme well-known? The editor who saw potential, the publisher who took a risk, the marketing team who made you aware something exists.

The old model is broken, but the alternatives are murky. Patronage? Subscriptions? Tips? These all require the audience to voluntarily pay after they’ve already consumed the work. That feels more honest.

How can we create the right incentives to foster more innovation and creations if everything is licensed under CC0? Perhaps the question itself is wrong. Perhaps in a world where distribution is free, we need to stop thinking about capturing value and start thinking about creating it.