The folks over at TechDirt responded today to the discussion at Cato Unbound regarding copywrite that I discussed earlier. In their incredulous reaction to the idea that copyright is still viable (or at least to the article by Doug Lichtman, a law professor at UCLA on the subject), they offer their own “helpful hints” for saving the movie business.

What’s interesting about these suggestions is that they suggest that even the savviest tech types are still under the impression that theatrical revenues are either particularly significant for most releases or that increasing theatrical revenue (which tends to be costly) would compare to the much greater revenues that stand to be lost in home media sales.

Tim Lee has posted his response to Rasmus Fleischer’s proposal to ditch copyright law at Cato Unbound, making the hardly strident but accurate point that copyright law is still functional outside the digital realm.

In that domain, a reader comments on my earlier post:

I think the general consensus among folk who study this stuff is that watermarking — and a variety of schemes have been floated for years now — isn’t really going to be that helpful. The large-scale distribution content firms worry about, as on p2p networks, typically involves skilled geeks who can strip away every form of watermark yet devised with minimal trouble, so watermarking won’t stop untraceable copies from getting into circulation there (all you need is one clean copy). On the other hand, you have small-fry casually sharing a song or DVD with a couple friends, who might leave the watermark in, but are unlikely to get on the copyright enforcement radar screen.

That has probably been true in the past, but as we go forward it’s possible a new model may emerge that will be more conducive to the watermark- that of audience profit participation. In an ad-based profit model, for example, one way of incentivizing tracking and data collection in general may be to let the viewers actually get paid (or rewarded in some way) for watching films.

Digital distribution isn’t just a quandary for filmmakers or “the industry”- politicians are worried about it too. Just how copyright law can be maintained, transformed, or judged gratuitous is something that the Congress is grappling with (though unsurprisingly, not in a very productive way).

Over at think tank Cato’s Unbound, which operates in a kind of debate format, Rasmus Fleischer has posted his argument as to why the entire Copyright law is superfluous, essentially because in the digital age, all media is so easy to copy that it is not possible to protect works from being duplicated without payment.

Though this leaves out the issue of protection of the original work entirely, even at a basic digital level it seems to me it is possible to imbue works with some kind of authorship, though it is clear that the ease of copying files makes it difficult to prevent duplication.

Technology-wise, there seems to be a plan afoot to imbue source files with a digital watermark- so that the files could still be copied but where they came from would be reflected in their DNA. While serious pirates might work to get around such marking, the average person would not probably object- especially if the cost involved was either not direct to the consumer or came as part of some kind of subscription-based plan (the days of individual-download pricing do seem numbered).

Filmmakers may not see the value in copyright anymore. As Fleischer suggests, many forward-thinking indie filmmakers are moving to a community model for distribution and making money, an “added value” experience for viewers who can participate in more than just watching a film. One problem is that without protections, other people can make money off your film too, and if their distribution network is already established, they may shut you out of your own release.

Tim Lee will be rebutting the article tomorrow at Cato Unbound. Stay tuned.