Quote:
Originally Posted by Kali Yuga
In terms of "monopolies," you should also keep in mind that copyright does not require that an author grant exclusive publishing rights to one company. For example, a photographer offer a series of photos to a magazine, and retain the right for a different company to publish those same photos in a monograph, as well as the right to sell prints in gallery exhibitions. Or you could stipulate in your contract that the publisher has exclusivity for only 25 or 50 years. You are also welcome to start a publishing house that does not require exclusivity. I don't know how long it would survive, but who knows, it could be a huge success. The salient point is that nothing in copyright itself requires that the content creator surrender exclusive rights to a publisher; copyright is highly flexible in this regard.
|
Those monopolies were once instated because they were afraid that print runs would result in stock destruction. Yes, authors don't "need" to sign exclusivity contracts, but when the choice is between signing or not being published.. exclusivity is demanded, not asked for in a silky tone of voice by a kindly old lady after she's given you the money.
Quote:
|
Bad business deals or unscrupulous behavior by record labels ultimately doesn't have much to do with copyright. If a label demands you sign a deal memo before signing a contract, or isn't paying you what they owe, or is harassing you rather than supporting you, copyright is not the cause or even exacerbating the problems.
|
The fact that slave-owners could act with impunity vis-a-vis their slaves had nothing to do with the fact that 1. they had a socially superior position, and 2. they had the legal right to do whatever they want, and 3. they had the money (earned by their slaves' labor) to lobby to keep the status quo?
That really is a politically naïve argument to make. Copyright legislation has been written by copyright owners; the fair-use was thrown in by clear-headed people once, but has since been mostly ignored (or diluted, see DMCA).
Copyrights are what allowed those companies to earn money to get to the position of relative power versus the individual creator/musician/whatever; now that they have that money, and they can say "look, we can make or break you", the individual is screwed. "Not in the Land of the Free," you might of course now reply, myths being what they are, but then, we never like to talk about the fact that power is distributed unevenly, especially when it concerns amoral "persons" like corporations.
But by all means, pretend that copyright law is the only way to go just because nobody is having major commercial success with an alternative yet.
The US car industry only survived through heavy gasoline price subsidies; had these been removed, the industry would be gone or enormously smaller (but more competitive). There would be less money to be found there. But that money might've been used on something else, and earned somewhere else (in car engine innovation?
).
I don't really understand why you think it a valid argument that the current revenue levels have to be maintained through idiotic legislation that, like trade tariffs, abridges the "market" to do its work at the cost of the tax payer (because they're the ones paying for the subsidies). Sure, people will earn less writing books, but then, so do horse buggy manufacturers.
Right now almost nobody is willing to even try CC-licencing (although that's not the same as a non-exclusive commercial licence) books. (Though UChicago is apparently considering it) You can still sell those, you see, and if you want even give authors a part of the royalties from printed book sales (which you can also still sell), and there is no reason why publishers wouldn't have to still pay royalties over the books sold; it would just mean they can't claim they're the only one doing so from any given book.