Quote:
Originally Posted by QuantumIguana
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.
|
My point is that copyright has the effect of increasing the value of works. Obviously if you can copy a work for free, then its value goes down. Further, new works would not have to compete with no or reduced cost copyright works. This competition need not put new books out of business. It just siphons off some money making the situation worse for new authors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuantumIguana
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.
|
I agree the census data is not totally clear. However, my original statement was about musicians who were earning a living from music. I may look more into the issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuantumIguana
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.
|
It is funny that you bring up these points, as movies have almost certainly decreased the number of people employed in live theatre.
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuantumIguana
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?
|
I do not think that I ever advocated that recorded music should be suppressed. However, competition from out of copyright material makes it more difficult to support yourself as an author.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MrsJoeseph
Yet people still have jobs in publishing.
|
If Amazon has its way, there will be many fewer people.