Huge investments in films like that would completely cease to exist. No amount of hand waving will paper over that fact...
Since we've never experimented with a total abolition of copyright, the idea that investment in film would cease cannot be called a "fact." I think the overall idea is that, if we reduced the scope of or eliminated copyright, other incentive systems would emerge to allow passionate creators to continue to practice their art. There's probably another sentiment that Hollywood could do everything it does now with smaller budgets if they were subject to more natural market forces. I don't think most people arguing for drastic copyright reform are arguing for a complete destruction of the arts (though many on that side of the debate probably wouldn't miss most of what Hollywood puts out).
Personally, I think it's reasonable to expect that movies that were made in my childhood can be reinterpreted freely well before my death, just as Shakespeare and Dickens can be reinterpreted now. Allowing slightly aged works to fall out of copyright shouldn't disincentivize future creation.
If you read carefully, I said "huge investments", not that investment at all would cease to exist.
What are some of the "other incentive systems" that would allow you to sink 100 million dollars into a film and hope to recover them?
The only one to spring to mind would be in-film product placement and advertising, although to tell the truth I think there's already enough of that.
> Personally, I think it's reasonable to expect that movies that were made in my childhood can be reinterpreted freely well before my death, just as Shakespeare and Dickens can be reinterpreted now. Allowing slightly aged works to fall out of copyright shouldn't disincentivize future creation.
I agree with that 100%. Copyright is too far tilted in favor of producers right now. My point is merely that it is a balance.
> What are some of the "other incentive systems" that would allow you to sink 100 million dollars into a film and hope to recover them?
Maybe we are approaching the end of the $100M movie era. Maybe they will no longer be able to spend $100M in special effects and famous faces and be required (gulp) to deliver compelling stories.
Since we've never experimented with a total abolition of copyright, the idea that investment in film would cease cannot be called a "fact." I think the overall idea is that, if we reduced the scope of or eliminated copyright, other incentive systems would emerge to allow passionate creators to continue to practice their art. There's probably another sentiment that Hollywood could do everything it does now with smaller budgets if they were subject to more natural market forces. I don't think most people arguing for drastic copyright reform are arguing for a complete destruction of the arts (though many on that side of the debate probably wouldn't miss most of what Hollywood puts out).
Personally, I think it's reasonable to expect that movies that were made in my childhood can be reinterpreted freely well before my death, just as Shakespeare and Dickens can be reinterpreted now. Allowing slightly aged works to fall out of copyright shouldn't disincentivize future creation.