Quote:
Originally Posted by sirbruce
We're getting way off-track by semantics that are now completely out of context.
|
If
you say so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sirbruce
I was asked, specifically, "So why do you use terms like "compensated fairly"". Such a question is entirely within the context of compensating fairly the copyright holders, authors, and publishers. It's not about what a consumer thinks is a just price.
|
Actually, it is. Saying blind people need to pay 3x the RRP for the same work is possibly discrimination, and in any case not
just. The point of copyright is that it's temporary, and that stuff in the end belongs in the PD, and "fair compensation" refers to the fact that the public in essence is/will be allowed to claim it (when it expires into the PD).
As such, if you, through your relative monopoly on your IP, "enforce", through making availabe an "authorized" audiobook of your book at 3x the price of the pback, a price that is unreasonable, you're not being
fair in any sense of the word that takes into account that that compensation is (was?) defined as
temporary anyway.
Sure, you could make a case that you're providing the audiobook at that price because the turnover will be lower, but I really doubt that a non-celebrity
reader really costs that much, especially when the market opens up, as right now it's just a niche (luxury) market. Any grandma with a pleasant voice can read a book to a kid in a manner suitable for reading to an adult blind person.
Anyway, if another company can provide the same title at 10$ (or 12$), they've just proven, through the "market", that you're cheating blind folks out of their money, or that you're paying way too much by hiring voice candy (what, brad pitt needs to read your harlequin novel?), per the above definition.