Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg
If I bought a lot of books directly (as opposed to indirectly through my tax dollars), it might be less of a struggle 
But as I see it, the whole idea of copyright it to make the book expensive so that creators (not just the author, but the whole team who created the book) get incentivized to do the best job possible. The guilty publishers were just doing, in the US, what they are legally required to do in other countries, and I don't see why our way is better for society.
It all depends. In the case of most of the books I read, the copyright notice says it is copyrighted by the author, but the contract you mentioned basically transfers the rights to the publisher for many years. As for the book I am currently reading, the notice reads: "Copyright © 2000 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College." Since the Kindle edition is $52.80 (with no big-six involvement), I'm reading a paper copy from the Philadelphia library. I hope and presume the price is set where it is to maximize revenue to the author and publisher. |
To answer you question. Each copyright is an individual monopoly. It is expected to compete with every other monopoly.
Let me give you a historical example concerning real property. I own land. I make a lease to an oil and gas company to develop the oil under my property. The company does so and sell the oil. So far, so good. They have a monopoly on developing oil under my property. But that does not grant them the right to form a monopoly of all oil production. (Standard Oil, 1911 SOTUS ruling, the first anti-trust action approved by the US Supreme Court.) Substitute copyright for oil, and you have an exact mirror situation...