Perhaps this might make it difficult for new artists to get off the ground or discovered. But maybe some ways around this would be for producers to invest in new artists they believe will be successful, and then collect a royalty on future work.
Anyway, I'm just throwing out ideas for discussion.
Form organizations which take the money and pay the artists salaries. Now becoming a new artist becomes similar to becoming a new programmer or architect or whatever.
I think artists should be paid by endorsements - like the old times, when barons would pay an artist to create a work of art. Only now, we can have people from the internet chip in small amounts. I.e., an artist proposes some art, and those who wants it can promise payment. Once the art is made, an infinite copy can be created, and every and anyone can access it.
So what incentivizes people to pay that initial bit, i hear you ask? Some people, especially fans, don't mind paying it. And that is where the value is extracted from.
Same question can be asked of any salaried worker.
Anyway, once said artist has got some experience and built up their portfolio, there's nothing stopping them from leaving the organisation to work freelance (and be paid by endorsements). The organisation idea was really just a middle tier to allow people to pool their resources and share the rewards, including allowing new artist a way to get into the system.
o what incentivizes people to pay that initial bit, i hear you ask? Some people, especially fans, don't mind paying it. And that is where the value is extracted from.
Recently kickstarter has been proving this to be true! Also the success of the humble indie bundles suggests this is true.
2. I'm sorry, but I don't understand how copyright is an outgrowth of taxes. One is a mechanism to generate funds for the government, the other is a means to protect intellectual property. Could you clarify your point?
It's not a tax per se, but a cost imposed by the state solely for the benefit of a private party. The original US copyright act allowed for 14 years of protection. Of course, a portion of the rent-seeking copyright cartel's revenue goes to lobby the congress for ever longer copyright terms, making the original intent of the constitution mangled beyond recognition.
Copyright is a [not so] limited-time state sponsored monopoly.
It is not rent-seeking.
Whilst copyright in the jurisdictions I know about is pretty much broken by over-extended time periods given to the monopoly rights holder at the [highly undemocratic IMO] detriment to the public domain it is nonetheless still given for creating new works. By definition copyright is granted on works that didn't exist before, new intellectual property has been created - how can this then be rent-seeking.
To recapitulate, using the Wikipedia definition thus (my emphasis):
"Rent [...] is obtained when a third party deprives one party of access to otherwise accessible transaction opportunities, making nominally "consensual" transactions a rent-collection opportunity for the third party."
Works would not be otherwise accessible if they were not first created.
I'll probably go along with a charge that extension of copyright terms (already granted) to the detriment of the public domain is rent-seeking behaviour however.
The way west society solved the question on how we pay the utility guys who maintain the water supply is with taxes. Copyright is an outgrowth of taxes. A private monopoly granted by the state that can be used to generate revenue without any unit cost associated. In any free market, if the unit price is zero, the then market price must be zero too.
The thing I personally wonder is, since copyright is a form of tax granted by the state, is this the best way to reward creators in the art of science and beauty?