Quote:
Originally Posted by Moxie Mezcal
What's better for those schools? Hundred-dollar hardback textbooks or print-on-demand paper copies? What's better for those libraries? What's better for the environment?
You hold your nose in disdain at the photocopy of a PD or CC work for your inner-city library, ignoring the fact that such an option would exponentially increase the number of books those kids would have access to. Of course, Doubleday won't be pocketing $30 for the glossy hardback of Harry Potter, but I'm more concerned about the kids.
|
I wasn't talking about copies of PD or CC works; the discussion was about no copyright whatsoever. All works would be available to anyone who manages to copy them.
I don't like the idea of photocopy/printout works in libraries, which increase the obvious divide between rich communities and poor communities. I don't think students from poor neighborhoods need *more* reminders of how much they're forced to make do with freebies. Right now, rich and poor kids alike can read popular novels that look the same on the outside. Rich kids can buy them; poor kids can borrow them. Removal of copyright will encourage poor libraries to cut corners by printing them, in tiny type to save paper, instead of buying them. Poor kids won't want to be seen reading, because they'll know that declares their poverty to the world.
We've got enough problems convincing kids in poor neighborhoods to read--they think it's "geeky" and not related to "real life." Tie reading into an announcement of income level and that battle is lost.
However, printouts are certainly better than no books, which seems to be Moejoe's other idea--print of all sorts will vanish; the middle-class will all have computer screens of some sort to read from, and the poorest members of society will slowly slip into illiteracy, as daily leisure reading just won't be part of their lives.