Quote:
Originally Posted by rogue_librarian
Actually, it's not so much about authors and publishers as it is about bookstores.
|
Correct.
"Cultural protectionism" is a strawman argument and a smokescreen to hide pure corporate welfare. Protectionism is an economic tool, not a social or cultural one.
If anybody wants to make the argument that taking money from the poor to give to the wealthy is good public policy, I'm not going to argue one way or another; this isn't the venue.
But to argue that there is some *special virtue* in raising book prices, thereby raising barriers to the practice of literacy and the spread of ideas; that making reading more expensive and therefore limiting its accesibility to the poor is a way to strengthen local culture strikes me as the kind of doublespeak that Orwell's distopia relied on.
If the aim is to protect the profits of booksellers, come out and say it; let the citizenry decide if they care that much about them to sacrifice for them. By trying to obfuscate and hide the true intent the protectionists are admitting that, given an open choice, consumers would refuse to sacrifice for the booksellers. That, I would agree with.
Propping up failing/uncompetitive booksellers only delays and magnifies the eventual collapse; instead of one or two or a few failing, thereby strengthing the survivors that adapt, protectionism ensures all remain isolated and uncompetitive and fail simultaneously.
And fail they will because, as we all know, the days of batch-printed treeware as the primary distribution channel for books are numbered.
Delaying the inevitable is no virtue, shows no forethought, and it is hardly a shame to recognize a futile effort and refuse to support it.