I'm afraid I have to disagree with the two major contentions put forth here-
that it's unfair not to repay artists for using their work, and that a 'no
commercial use' clause is fair. jxself explained the latter perfectly I
think- unless *nobody* has the right to commercial use, it's censorship.
The former component is a little more complex. Potentially, a move towards
crowdfunding could cover costs, as has been suggested. A change in the system
would be nothing new- VCR didn't come coupled with compensation for TV
networks, and cover artists don't get a cent of royalties for their
performances.
However, even for those (like me) who don't feel this is an entirely fair
system, there are alternatives which still allow for free culture. Stallman
has suggested a tax, which is then distributed amongst artists according to
the cube root of statistically inferred popularity. Another method, or a
complimentary one, would be to put in place universal basic income as a
safety net for entrepreneurial endeavors. This would cover art as well.
In any case, it may also be worth addressing the notion that CC licenses are
preferable to the current copyright system. This is proven to be true for
small authors, but the opposite is shown for the mega-corporations. These
institutions, unfortunately, appear not to be merely concerned with
preserving their right to use the current system: they also have a vested
interest in making sure EVERYONE does. I believe it was Doctorow who
hypothesized that they want to make sure that their culture is the only
culture, and so eagerly pursue mechanisms to reduce the opportunity for
artists to accidentally fail to maintain tight grip on the rights to their
work. The best way to change behavior is to change the default-
unfortunately, this means legislative action is probably much more effective
than talking with artists.
