My attitude is "Go ahead and copy what I've done. I'm focused on my next project."

I'm dismayed by the way people basically use a formulation akin to "Once I've created something, the world owes me a living!" as justification for strict copyright enforcement. Just like someone who makes a chair, someone who writes a novel or a piece of software should have to find someone willing to give money for it in and of itself, without governmental interference; just like someone who makes a chair, someone who writes a novel or a piece of software should not be able to use government to ensure that others won't copy the work.

I can't wait for 3D printers to become a practical reality in homes across the nation. Will people start trying to claim that making copies of a chair (or a coffee mug, or a Mont Blanc style of pen, or whatever) with that printer are somehow violating copyright? Will they admit they ever thought differently, if so?

tell me more about this new economy you're thinking of

There's more discussion of potential business models at It's not my fault your business model sucks. I think you might want to give that a look.

If someone has written a book, software, music, etc. How do they go about making money off of it in the new economy you're describing?

The reason I recommend giving that other discussion a look is simply that this is a very, very broad question, with many more than one possible answer. In fact, some of the answers are offered, or at least hinted at, in the SOB entry that starts the other discussion.

And without copyright law, what stops someone else from releasing a copied version of it free or cheaper because that other person or business doesn't have to pay for the cost of creating the item?

In principle, nothing stops them. The key is to develop a business model that works quickly, or that slows initial spread of the material in certain limited cases, and that creates greater value from something only you can provide. For instance, a musician could distribute recordings for free on the Internet and charge admission for performances — and you're not going to get a performance by the original artist from someone other than the original artist, so that's a natural monopoly. I mentioned that sort of possibility, as an example, in It's not my fault your business model sucks.

If someone has written a book, software, music, etc. How do they go about making money off of it in the new economy you're describing? This person has put a lot of time into their work, and he or she would like to be compensated so that person can have more time to work on the next book/software/music/etc. . . and maybe pay their expenses from the project rather than their other job.

And without copyright law, what stops someone else from releasing a copied version of it free or cheaper because that other person or business doesn't have to pay for the cost of creating the item?

Wow man. I've abandoned civil discussion? Okay.

That's what happens when you turn the other people in the discussion into marauders trying to destroy your livelihood with your words, rather than being willing to consider whether their positions might have value you've overlooked. That's what happens when you dismiss and ignore their already presented arguments and just make unsupported assertions that have already been addressed as if repeating yourself disproved their counterarguments.

I guess this is the place to come to to be taught about things while being called a moron, rather than debate about them in a civilized matter. You've got it all figured out.

If you actually engaged the debate, rather than simply dismissing it and repeating assertions that have already been addressed, you'd have a lot more success having a reasoned discussion.

You very clearly stated that you're not buying that anyone has a right to harm your livelihood. That has an underlying assumption implicit in it that you absolutely will not consider the possibility that what we're discussing might not "harm" your livelihood. When you reject the principles of the opposing argument as the very basis of your involvement in discussion, and predicate an accusation of trying to cause harm on that assumption, you're clearly not interested in an actual civil discussion. You've abandoned civility in favor of propaganda and insult. Period.

Let me know if and when you want to come back to reasoned discussion, and we can talk about it. In the meantime, I can only take you at your word, which states clearly that you're not interested in considering any of my reasoning.

DamnedScholar:

Thanks for contributing to the discussion. You make some excellent points (as do Sterling and others whose comments come further up the thread), and I appreciate it. Well-reasoned arguments and considerations of details (like yours) always help to increase the value of the conversation.

I guess this is the place to come to to be taught about things while being called a moron, rather than debate about them in a civilized matter. You've got it all figured out.

I must have stumbled into the wrong place, sorry about that chief.

Good luck. Sorry I offended you and "blew my fucking lid", guy.

If I make my living as a music engineer for a producer, and cd sales are gone because of people "sharing" my work. What am I supposed to feed my kids from?

There are people who are suffering under the current model who would do much better under an alternative model. You're talking about trading their happiness, success, and livelihood for your own. It may sound harsh to you, but given a choice between some people having a hard time under the current model and others having a hard time under an alternative model where people's rights aren't being trampled for the sake of the status quo, I choose the option where people's rights are respected, even if that means you lose your job — especially considering it would mean, in the long run, that other people who don't have jobs get jobs.

Any change in the way economic markets run themselves will result in a shake-up in the job market. That doesn't mean that change is bad.

There are real faces and families behind this sort of thing. Not just the artist on the cover, or in a books case, the authors. . . the publishers, editors, typesetters, guys that get no credit, just a paycheck.

These are the same arguments used by anyone who wants to stop technological progress. This is much more important than mere technological advances in an industry; this is a matter of ethics and liberty.

Giving stuff away is very idealistic, but when people depend on this stuff selling, in order to feed their kids, well it takes a different meaning for me.

You don't have to "give stuff away". You just can't ethically tell someone what to do with what you've already sold to him without an explicit, voluntary contract (and no, copyright is not a contract, nor is an end user license agreement).

I thought much like you guys when I was younger. Then I suddenly got married, got kids, and had to feed a family.

The "I'm older, so I know better" argument doesn't prove anything other than your failure to grasp the intricacies of a logically valid argument. Furthermore, you surely don't know how old most of us actually are, if not all of us. I don't know how old Stargazer or satyre are, and I have a sneaking suspicion you don't know how old I am either if you're implying I'm "young". I'm not some teenaged idealist; I'm a mid-thirties cynic.

But if I create something, and choose to go about selling it (because it's mine and that's what I want to do), what gives anyone the right to try to harm me by undercutting my attempts at making a buck by giving it away?

Did you not notice what I said in my newer SOB entry in response to you? I specifically pointed it out with a link, in the hopes you would read it and take what I said there into account before you replied further. I'll quote a relevant point for you:

I make money by writing (both articles in English and software source code), in fact — far more than the piddly quantities I get form advertising on this obscure site — and I would love for copyright to go away. It's not like I'm working in manufacturing and advocating for someone else's industry to change all its rules. I'm talking about what I want to happen with the very fields of endeavor where I make money.

A friend of mine, also a consultant who writes software for money, linked to this SOB entry, is a fair bit older than me, and has children of his own, including one with autism (stuff I feel comfortable sharing considering he has written about it in the linked Weblog); he is willing and able to think the matter through more fully than you, and encourages my writings on the subject because he realizes both the importance of discussion such matters of rights and liberties and he knows one needn't rely on government enforced monopolies to make a living as a creator of original works.

Nobody has the right to harm my atempt at a living. Sorry. That, I'm not buying.

I'm sorry, but when you put it in terms like that, I don't know any other way to respond to get my point across other than to make it as blatant and clear as possible. If you find this offensive, just remember that you set the stage for it by implying that I'm trying to "harm" your livelihood and that on which your children depend. As far as I'm concerned, when you start basically calling me some kind of malicious assailant out to "harm" you, you've abandoned civil discussion. With that disclaimer aside, the only answer to what you've said that comes to mind right now is this:

You don't have the right to send thugs into my home with guns to get me to stop using what I've acquired through peaceful means however the fuck I like. Period.

I'm not harming your fucking livelihood. You are, by adhering to and depending upon a business model that requires violating others' rights.

It's not my fault your business model sucks.

Frankly, considering you haven't even addressed the discussion of alternate business models and the fact that there are people already making a living off similar lines of work without relying on copyright, I have to assume you aren't even reading what I say and bothering to think about it at all. You see that someone doesn't like copyright and patent law and you flip your fucking lid, throwing out arguments that have already been addressed. Either take account of things that have been said, or expect to be treated the way you behave; like a child who can't be bothered to study a subject before acting like he knows it all, and needs a time out.

Giving stuff away is very idealistic, but when people depend on this stuff selling, in order to feed their kids, well it takes a different meaning for me. I thought much like you guys when I was younger. Then I suddenly got married, got kids, and had to feed a family. There's real people behind all the sharing that are impacted by these things.

One thing is choosing to give it away. I get that. For some people it works. I get that too.

But if I create something, and choose to go about selling it (because it's mine and that's what I want to do), what gives anyone the right to try to harm me by undercutting my attempts at making a buck by giving it away? Nobody has the right to harm my atempt at a living. Sorry. That, I'm not buying. And I respect people who defend their interests, because I would as well.

@newbiedm – Apart from Chad's and Stargazer's responses, add in Jonathan Coulton and Amanda Palmer; if you want to take a look at the business model go to techdirt.com and do a search on CWF+RTB.

Hmm, if I look around the blogosphere I see a lot of people willing to give away stuff for free. Just look at all the roleplaying games that are available for free either under a Creative Commons or Open Gaming license. And almost every blog is a good example for what people are giving away for free. In fact it's not free, I for example pay approx. $14 every month to be able to write posts that others are allowed to freely use, as long as they credit me and don't sell the stuff.
Or just look at Cory Doctorow, as far as I know most if not all his books can be freely downloaded from the net, you only have to pay for printed books and he can still make a living. It's possible, just different than we did it back in the 19th or 20th century.