[fulafel]

What kind of support is there for the hypothesis that our current copyright system is close to ideal in incentivising production of new works? It seems to me that there's a very strong "winner takes all" distribution and we could be a better culture if we had a system that took some of the opulent resources poured into to star wars franchise, rehashed murder simulators and tiktok and distributed it to some poor artists whose worthiness was decided in some other way than being a mass market best seller.

[therealdrag0]

What had been proposed that would help with that?

Winner takes all is a function of popularity and network effects; how does it relate to copyright?

[fulafel]

> What had been proposed that would help with that?

It's a big question, and I'm not really familiar with the latest thinking of the copyright regime critics & reformists. Off the top of my head, some of the policy tools used in other similar regulation scenarios, where the aim has been to cap the windfalls for network effect winners, have been to install some kind of cross-subsidization / income transfer mechanism, for example to require media to carry a certain share of legislator decided content categories. Rolling back some of the copyright, patent etc extensions favouring IPR capital over creators and consumers is a boring but obvious policy action as well.

> Winner takes all is a function of popularity and network effects; how does it relate to copyright?

I don't know how to succintly answer this, it seems obvious to me so I'd have to spell out a lot of things about those 4 concepts and their interplay. But consider eg the negotiating position of an garage songmaker vs Spotify or book author vs Amazon and reflect on how the concepts relate there.