Hence, in the current system, there is no incentive for alternative models to really develop
I don't think that's necessarily true. For example, if, as self-confessed pirates have frequently argued on sites like Slashdot, the advertising side-effect of sharing works freely ultimately generates more revenue for the creator than copyright-controlled distribution, then the logical move even with copyright is to put those works into the public domain and invite donations to support the creator. However, that risks the alternative possibility that the "advertising benefit" agument really is just another pyramid scheme, and without enough law-abiding (with copyright)/donation-giving (without copyright) people at the end of it to support everyone else, it's just rationalising freeloading.
Also, your argument does not take into account the fact that without copyright derivative works would be utilized to a much fuller extent.
There are definitely valid arguments against copyright based on greater use of derivative works. The problem is that it is also possible that derivative works would become dominant if it were easy to make them and much harder to create something original, with little incentive to do the latter.
I don't think that's necessarily true. For example, if, as self-confessed pirates have frequently argued on sites like Slashdot, the advertising side-effect of sharing works freely ultimately generates more revenue for the creator than copyright-controlled distribution, then the logical move even with copyright is to put those works into the public domain and invite donations to support the creator. However, that risks the alternative possibility that the "advertising benefit" agument really is just another pyramid scheme, and without enough law-abiding (with copyright)/donation-giving (without copyright) people at the end of it to support everyone else, it's just rationalising freeloading.
Indeed, and plenty of artists nowadays (both big and small) have experimented to a certain degree with this model. It has its benefits and downsides but largely your argument is not particularly relevant to the topic of the article: the question is not 'Would content creators be better off without copyright?', it is 'Would society be better off without copyright?' The economic optimum is for creators to make the fixed costs of producing the work and nothing else; there is little incentive for them to support changing the current system which gives them an essentially unlimited monopoly on their work. The article is merely meant to outline some ways in which creators could get their fixed costs covered without copyright.
There are definitely valid arguments against copyright based on greater use of derivative works. The problem is that it is also possible that derivative works would become dominant if it were easy to make them and much harder to create something original, with little incentive to do the latter.
Why is this a problem? Modern popular culture demonstrates pretty conclusively that most people have no problem with works that are essentially derivative..
The economic optimum is for creators to make the fixed costs of producing the work and nothing else
I don't think economics works the way you think it does. You just removed not only the incentive to make a better (but more expensive to produce) work but also the financial incentive to create any work at all.
Why is this a problem?
Why is it a problem to replace a system that supports the creation of original, innovative works with a system that pushes heavily toward creating endless derivative works and minor variations of the same tired ideas? Are you really asking that question seriously?
I think, contrary to your suggestion, that plenty of people are already fed up with the same old movie sequels and annual releases by the same computer game franchises and so on. But that's what happens when the system doesn't effectively support those who would create more interesting alternatives, which typically aren't as profitable on a first outing but cost more to produce. Coming soon: Cloned Sports Franchise 2013 edition, with ads shown every five minutes during your favourite fly-on-the-wall reality TV show.
From the Mark Lemley paper quoted elsewhere on this page:
Economic theory offers no justification for
awarding creators anything beyond what is necessary to recover their average fixed costs.
I think I'm fairly happy putting my faith in him knowing how economics works.
I think, contrary to your suggestion, that plenty of people are already fed up with the same old movie sequels and annual releases by the same computer game franchises and so on. But that's what happens when the system doesn't effectively support those who would create more interesting alternatives, which typically aren't as profitable on a first outing but cost more to produce. Coming soon: Cloned Sports Franchise 2013 edition, with ads shown every five minutes during your favourite fly-on-the-wall reality TV show.
Do you think Notch would have problems raising funding on Kickstarter? How about Quentin Tarantino? How about Amanda Palmer, of the Dresden Dolls? How about the XX? Stuff which has a cult following seems to fare well under the patronage model.
Most of the really high budget stuff turns out to be fairly derivative. There are exceptions, but they're rare.
I don't think that's necessarily true. For example, if, as self-confessed pirates have frequently argued on sites like Slashdot, the advertising side-effect of sharing works freely ultimately generates more revenue for the creator than copyright-controlled distribution, then the logical move even with copyright is to put those works into the public domain and invite donations to support the creator. However, that risks the alternative possibility that the "advertising benefit" agument really is just another pyramid scheme, and without enough law-abiding (with copyright)/donation-giving (without copyright) people at the end of it to support everyone else, it's just rationalising freeloading.
Also, your argument does not take into account the fact that without copyright derivative works would be utilized to a much fuller extent.
There are definitely valid arguments against copyright based on greater use of derivative works. The problem is that it is also possible that derivative works would become dominant if it were easy to make them and much harder to create something original, with little incentive to do the latter.