Quote:
Originally Posted by MarjaE
Social knowledge and discussion benefit us all.
The rationale for these monopolies was to reward authors and publishers for contributing to knowledge and discussion, tolerating the harms of monopolies and their enforcement in return for the benefits of more writing, wider publication, and eventually additions to the public domain. If and when important works aren't available, then the system isn't working as it's supposed to. So yes the absence or the excessive costs of some reference books are a relevant critique. Of course we have to expect some gaps. But with digital distribution there don't have to be as many gaps as before.
The rationale was not that these monopolies granted a right to these monopolies.
|
Making something digital makes it fair prey for piracy?
That is the argument of the "bad guy" publishers who don't want ebooks at all.
Traditional pirates used to justify their scanning by saying the ebooks couldn't be purchased, now they can be purchased all over and *that* justifies it?
(And that last sentence needs editing. As written it is semantic nonsense. it is the consititution that grants the copyright to the distribution monopoly, not the monopoly itself.)
The constitution grants the copyright to encourage *creation*, not consumption. It's in the constitution because paying creators is *that* important.
In case you haven't noticed, for decades there have been thousands of galented writers who stopped creating because print publishing didn't justify the effort.
Today's ebook tech is allowing many more creators to get paid but if the IA rationalization prevails they too will quit.
Tomorrow's books are funded by today's sales.
And today's sales are moving to digital. Print pay is inadequate. Just ask the autbor associations.
But the IA is clearly a follower of HAGAR THE HORRIBLE:
O words of love, O words divine!
The silver thought, the golden line!
Of all men's words, there's none so fine,
As these three words: 'I've got mine!'
Hagar the Horrible