Quote:
Originally Posted by Iphinome
No, a digital good if such a thing exists doesn't need to have only once source. If a publishing contract was non exclusive then publishers would have to complete on price or in some other way on the same books/music/movies. It can work it does work newspapers all of them can pay a fee to use associated press material and then charge whatever they want for their papers. Since anyone who's a member or pays the fee can use it thy have to compete on something other than that content. This would keep any single publisher from holding material hostage for a high price, a monopoly price since someone else could come along and offer the same thing but take less of a per unit profit. The lowest bidder makes the sale because anyone who's willing to pay gets the best price anyone is willing to offer. The copyright holder still gets paid their licensing fee, everyone wins the only thing that goes down is the publisher's profit margin and that was only higher because they had a monopoly on a particular work.
I'd be a free market, if the tea baggers knew how to read they'd be all over this idea.
|
Ok. I don't get it. I don't see any business reason for this, ethical reason for this, or any way this changes anything (as the artists still sets a fee to charge someone, just hires anonymous agents to sell the book). Taken loosely, you just described the physical book distribution model.
Practically, if you mean that authors work directly with a trade organization that distributes their work, that is silly. The publisher does a heck of a lot more than set type.
However, if you mean this as a way to avoid orphan books, etc., It may be a good idea. I just don't think an Author, Publisher, or Pamphleteer should be forced into this kind of model.