Quote:
Originally Posted by DMB
The "book industry" you are talking about was tiny in comparison with what we have now. Not a lot of books were produced and the the readership was limited because so was literacy.
I don't see how you can make valid comparisons. You might as well go back to the era before printing. Copyright was not necessary when the only method for copying was long and laborious writing by hand.
|
That's a very fair point, however I do feel that you're taking it somewhat out of context.
My premises is that A) There's no historical justification for Copyright. B) Copyright has some harmful side effects. C) There's other ways of obtaining compensations for making creative works beyond Copyright.
There's definitely areas where I feel that it'd be hard to find an alternative to a limited Copyright, the pharmaceutical one for example where drugs are protected for a few years, ensuring the company a product while still giving consumers access to generic brands relatively quickly after.
But in terms of writing, the arguments for Copyright (You can profiliate the work quickly, you can obtain a digital copy as easy as pie etc.) are somewhat different. I feel the arguments here actually rather advocates a rethinking of the business model, rather than a protectivistic approach. Instead of clamping down harder, having Copyrights that you can hold on to for lifetimes, trying to brand creative thoughts as a physical commodity, I really think publishers need to rethink their strategy.
Some already are, Baen for example, and they deserve credit.