Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
No, I'm not being "obtuse" - I'm struggling to understand the point you're making. You said in a previous post that you support free market economics. Those six (or however many it is) publishers have achieved market dominance by the very process of free market economics that you say that you support - by taking over or driving out of business their smaller rivals. So on the one hand you're saying that you're in favour of a free market, but on the other hand you're saying that you don't like the outcome that that free market has created. I'm afraid that sounds like a contradiction to me.
|
As I said directly after your first reply:
Quote:
Originally Posted by zerospinboson
Publishers are (considering that 6 pubs have 80% market share) oligarchs who have monopolies on products. But yes, you're right. I should say that I want a regulated free market, which ensures that companies can't become too big for their britches. I wasn't talking about Amazon, in any case. (Because of the oligarchy it's very hard to boycot single publishers, as they control so many 'desirable' authors.)
|
In any case, I don't really understand why you are so interested in pointing out that I was being "contradictory". Infelicitous phrasing of my first post aside, it seems to me quite obvious what the main issue I was pointing to was.
Anyway, one way in which they benefit extraordinarily (that is, compared to just about
any other industry) from their copyrights is that, because they have eternal copyright on the products they sell, they can keep collecting money forever from the few books which keep selling, and they have a guaranteed minimum income.
This ensures that, after collecting 'hits' for more than 80 years now, they will have amassed an enormous 'default' income that other publishers will never be able to compete with. And with this money they can buy up the more successful authors, creating even more concentration.
Eternal copyright is bad in more ways than one.