Quote:
Originally Posted by darryl
I'm not entirely sure whether you agree with his point or are simply summarising your understanding of it. I personally disagree, on the basis that the statement is correct only from a viewpoint of unlimited entitlement to "rights holders"
|
I do agree with it and your summary, as well. The only thing we disagree on is whether elimination of the quid pro quo would be good or bad. I think it would be good. I see the model evolving to resemble the app stores. I think, too, that philanthropists (Amazon, MIT) would subsidize authors and publishers for the public good. So, IP creators make a living selling 99c ebooks and the rest of have access to inexpensive books -- which was the intent of Public Libraries anyway.
The lobbyists against this are not the IP creators -- they are the publishing houses. There will be a lot less of these in this world. These people make lot of money selling books to the public via governments. Libraries, fund for the arts, and public schools line their deep pockets. Having sat on a school budget committee and funded a college education, I know how much the quid pro quo costs the rest of us. (My kid was required to buy two expensive books which were never opened. They were part of $700 worth of books required for a single semester.)
Imagine a world where
MIT commissions the creation of e-texts for k-12 and puts them in the public domain to be used by public, private, and home schools. Education just got cheaper. Imagine a world where Amazon sponsored the creation/distribution of
classic texts and important documents.
The barriers to a free book market are gone. Only government institutions and expensive books shackle the industry.