As for remixing, I’d considered that, especially after watching http://www.hulu.com/watch/88782/rip-a-remix-manifesto on Hulu. But I consider it a small issue compared to the whole debate, so I didn’t mention it. Still, it’s another interesting aspect of the whole debate to consider.

I would argue that copyright law tends to favour the large corporations and therefore mass produced and commercial artists who I believe lack the artistic integrity mentioned above. Therefore it is only this area of the industry that would suffer from lack of copyright protection. I know the immediate retort to this would be that the large corporations redistribute money throughout industries and therefore benefit idependant artists too. I will not go into this here as it is a whole seperate debate in itself but I do believe that in the current digital age this view is outdated.

One last point I would like to make in support of abolishing copyright law is that it can actually stifle creativity. This is no more prevalent than in the area of digital sampling where many artists have been preventing from using other artists music to create new art. These artists are often trying to pay homage to artists who have inspired them and theire music but are prevented by copyright law for doing this. The most high profile example of this is Dangermouse’ The Grey Album but there are numerous high profiles since. I would be interesting to hear your opinion on the matters I raise, I think I am essentially making the same point as yourself above but from a different angle.

I guess the main thing I’m concerned with is giving readers the ability to pass digital files to others without worrying about if they owe someone money for the ability to do so. CC3 licensing does that right now, I suppose. What I don’t like is copyright removing all rights from the buyer the way it currently does (or, at least, most of them), simply because it makes things too complicated. The best way to get people do to what you want (read your book) is to make it as simple as possible. Worrying about legalities is a huge concern.

As it is, I agree with you that attribution is a big deal, because even without copyright as it currently stands, attribution is one thing I’m not willing to give up. As for washing dishes, well, part of being an artist of any kind is learning the art itself, and the other part, arguably the more important part (for some arts, anyway) is figuring out a business model to make a living from that art. I don’t think that digital copy sales is enough unless you’re a big name. How are your books doing, Levi? Would you find it really crass if I asked about your financials? If you’re not interested in discussing it, I totally understand, but if you don’t mind talking about it, I’d love to read a post on your blog about that kind of thing.

If I. B. Awebtroll sees Lisa’s book, says “Hey, that’s a nice book!” and grabs it, sticks his name on it, takes it to Dingus McGee, and says “Here, publish my book for me, at your standard rates,” Lisa needs recourse against both of them. Even if Awebtroll simply copies parts of it, sticks them on his blog, and claims them, she needs recourse.

And, as you have pointed out, fiction writers need a way to make a living without spending all their time washing dishes. If we can achieve these goals, then I think that’s all we can ask from copyright laws.

Levi