Quote:
Originally Posted by petrucci
Sorry for the double post, but there are several people to whom I wish to reply.
There is certainly some truth to Quantum Iguana's statement about a book not selling. There is a lot of schlock out there, and much of it won't sell regardless of copyright. However, there are certainly some people who are choosing out of copyright books over new ones. These people are being lost from the new book market so to speak. This loss hurts authors as there is not as much money to go around.
I agree that many people are making music. However, a much smaller percentage of the population is earning a living from music. And some people are choosing Gershwin over other music.
|
The mistake you make is to assume that there is a fixed pool of money that people will spend on books, music or movies. If someone cannot read Dickens, this doesn't mean that they will simply buy a new book. If they can't buy Dickens, they may well just not read at all. Compyright does not, and cannot have the effect of eliminating competition to new books. As I said, the books that disappear into copyright limbo are books in low demand, they would be at most a small niche. Dickens would probably be read even if it was still in copyright. We'd probably lose the many adaptations of his works, but Dickens would be read. The Great Gatsby is still under copyright, and that hasn't driven it from the shelves.
Just look at all the books out there for sale. People are buying new books, and buying a lot of them. They put out good books - or at least books that people want to read - and people buy them. If someone's books don't sell, it's not because everyone is reading public domain books, it's because the readers don't want them. Readers aren't going to want these books any more just because public domain books aren't available.
I'm not sure what to make of that census data. It shows what people reported. Musicians needing a day job to get by is a very old practice. Are they a musician that waits tables or a waiter who is also in a band? They are going to pick one to put on the census.
People complained that movies were going to eliminate live theater. It didn't. People complained that TV would eliminate movies. It didn't. People complained the VCR was going to kill the movie industry. It didn't. Recorded music didn't kill live music. I vast range of live music to choose from.
But it doesn't matter. If someone can't compete with recorded music, too bad. That's not a reason to suppress recorded music. If someone can't compete with the works of the past, too bad. Write better books. Suppressing books to artificially create a market for new books has the same effect as book burning, and not only that, it won't increase the market for new books. Why should Gershwin be supressed?