Publishers need to die

[Charbax]

Art reflects society while it encourages and inspires growth and development in society. Arts are the vision for a better society. So if you create a system that better treats the artists and gives them more freedom to be more creative without them having to deal with superficial commercial aspects of their creations, then you can have better arts which in turn makes a better society.

It makes no sense to prevent everyone from getting access to all books, movies and music, just as it makes no sense to criminalize the activity of most of the users on the Internet. You can't punish a child for being curious.

[tlrowley]

Originally Posted by ShortNCuddlyAm

Charbax - are you an unpublished author by any chance? Or possibly an unhung painter or other unappreciated artist?

Now, now now, there's no need to question his manhood

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by Charbax

It makes no sense to prevent everyone from getting access to all books, movies and music, just as it makes no sense to criminalize the activity of most of the users on the Internet. You can't punish a child for being curious.

Sadly, sense has nothing to do with anything. All governments, including the U.S. government, have tried to suppress books and art with which they disagree or find offensive. In the 20th century in the U.S., criminal syndicalism statutes were used to ban "communist" books and to prosecute those who sold or distributed them. Religious groups protested the Robert Maplethorpe "art", leading to its banishment.

And it wasn't so long ago that the Inquisition (which didn't really come to an end until the mid-1800s) punished people who translated the bible into the vernacular languages.

So just because it makes no sense doesn't mean it won't occur and giving government the financial power via a tax that has to be collected and distributed is a dangerous proposition. Even with laws that are designed to insure objectivity, it takes time to go through the judicial system to remedy a wrong, assuming the judicial system will remedy a wrong. One famous example of that failure is the Dred Scott decision.

More importantly, it is the executive power that would collect and distribute any tax, and as President Andrew Jackson is alleged to have said about a U.S. Supreme Court decision, "They have made their decision, now let them enforce it" (or something close to that).

[hogleg]

Originally Posted by Charbax

The work of copy editing can quite simply be managed by wiki type of collaborative work by all users.

Let there be an infinite amount of versions of each ebook, remixes, rewrites, it's all up to the author which "copy writer" as you call it would be wirelessly invited online to "copy edit" his writing. If that's what you claim is important.

Last I checked, 80% of the revenue from selling books and even a larger % of selling of ebooks goes to publishers and all types of other intermediaries (distributors, Amazon and others). This to me is purely criminal and completely insane.

My money should go 100% to the author, and the author can hire "copy writers" online whatever you call it, can compensate fans for helping him promote his book if he wants. Amazon should have absolutely no cut in the sale of ebooks other than taking a reasonable separate fee whatever they may charge for the bandwidth, hosting and infrastructure of the cloud computing system that they provide.

Except not.

Bitter much? Publishers aren't all evil fat guys sitting on a golf cart. Mine does a lot of work. And she's kind of hot, for an older lady.

[lilac_jive]

Originally Posted by hogleg

Except not.

Bitter much? Publishers aren't all evil fat guys sitting on a golf cart. Mine does a lot of work. And she's kind of hot, for an older lady.

Sorry, it was funny.