[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       dmca-discuss
Subject:    [DMCA_Discuss] Re: New Thread
From:       Anatoly Volynets <anatoly () total-knowledge ! com>
Date:       2003-06-22 0:06:27
[Download RAW message or body]

On Thu, 5 Jun 2003, Robert F. Bodi wrote:

>
> Take copyright away, and guess what?  Somebody is going to undercut YOU in
> price because they can make cheap copies, and thus YOU won't make any money
> at all.
>

OK, 'Somebody is going to undercut... price', what is so tragic
about this? How about all other business areas? If I am going to
do publishing myself, I have to be ready to compete with others
and fight for my market share. If I am not going to do business
myself and sell my work to a publisher, how copyright helps me?

Let's scrutiny 3 models:

1. Anarchy model. This means there is neither copyright, nor any
other specific regulations for cultural environment at all. Such
situation never existed, because in pre-copyright era there had
been granted individual royal printing privileges all over the
Europe.

2. Copyright model. A universal publishing monopoly reflecting
an idea of ownership similar to private property, for "limited
time" though.

3. Authoright model. A universal culturally justified
non-alienable right for attribution to an *individual author* +
sponsorship attribution.

1. Anarchy. An author has to shop for a publisher. He may never
find one and thus end of story.

Suppose he did find a publisher. He may conduct preliminary
negotiations before let his work go.

Suppose he got some result, like: in case the work is accepted
than the author will be paid such and such. Happy end in the
very beginning. Some variants are still possible.

If publisher wants exclusive rights (effectively for that only
period until the work is published, because after that any other
publisher may have it) he may pay more to buy the author's
loyalty.

If the publisher does not want it the author may bring it to
another one and get paid by both. He has to prepare more than
one copy in this case.

What happens after publishing? Different scenarios are possible,
depending on acceptance of the work by public. Anyway the author
gets more and more popularity as far as other publishers may do
his work until it brings any money. So they all actually
advertise him at least. If second hand publisher wants to be
branded he may pay the author so that the publisher will be the
author's announced sponsor. Next work will be sold for greater
price, if the first one got famous.  In latter case publishers
will compete for the ability to get the next one first hand.

The history says all these may or may not happen. Namely the
very first publisher may rob the author: will not give any
written promise, take the work and publish it under some other
name. Nonetheless this changes not much. If the first stolen
work brings considerable money, the second one will not be
stolen, but bought, because other publishers will intervene in
order to get it.

This variant, OTOH brings bad reputation to the publisher-thief,
so he must take it in account. Also, the author may turn to a
court and sue the publisher under civil law. This will be matter
of proof and money, but still possible. Actually the author
could have another copy of the work and a witness he had it
before bringing the work to a publisher. Such measure may
effectively secure the work from stealing by a publisher.

Another feature of environment, which may develop within the
Anarchy model may be the following. As far as this model creates
highly competitive situation, publishers have to fight to
develop brand names. A publisher may achieve this deploying
following marketing strategies: try to always be first, try to
offer the best in terms of quality-for-price, sponsor authors
(instead of making appearance as a lover of free rides). This
should bring another layer of incentives to authors.

Now, suppose the first work does not bring money, which means
the author hasn't got any popularity. The entire story starts
over with the next work then.

Actually, I used to think that the Anarchy model was much worse
than it appears now. It looks like it could bring up pretty much
self-tuned market, very challenging for all parties though. Its
important feature is that *NO WORK* may disappear unnoticed and
quite probably unpublished. The spectrum of quality and prices
must overwhelm book/art market. This could be checked out on
the situation in revolutionary France before 1793, when their
copyright law was adopted, but I haven't encountered any
reliable source on that so far.

The Anarchy model is based entirely on contractual law, so
eventually publishers after getting considerable economical
power may (and, the history says, they had) plot to contract
authors and conduct publishing in copyright like manner: trying
to secure their profits for more long and stable time. Next step
will definitely be an attempt to make it universal so that to
effectively strip authors off of any ability to dictate
conditions and have a government to back this. This is what
happened in XVII century in England. It is interesting that the
Crown at that time was eager to rein on anonymous pamphlet
writers so the government's desire for censorship met with
publishers' desire for easier money and brought in the Statute
of Quinn Anne. It is even more interesting that actually the
same law (in its basic features: 14+14 years of limited printing
monopoly) was later adopted in the US in order to provide 'the
progress of science and useful arts'. It appeared to be a really
universal idea! However, not talking about science or
philosophy, just by common sense: could the same mechanism to
work in such contradictory directions?  Through centuries and
countries copyright definitely proved to be practically useful
for governments and publishers under the wording cover to
protect authors, creativity and culture (different terms were
used though), but has it provided a protection for authors and
development for culture, really?

2. Copyright. What I am going to do now, is to copy above text
and make changes to it when necessary. I shall mark the changes
by numbers in parentheses.

Hence, an author has to shop for a publisher. He may never find
one and thus end of the story. No differences with the Anarchy
in this regards.

Suppose he did find a publisher. He may conduct preliminary
negotiations before let his work go.

Suppose he got some result, like: in case the work is accepted
than the author will be paid such and such. Happy end in the
very beginning. Some variants are still possible. No differences
with the Anarchy so far.

If publisher wants exclusive rights (for printing monopoly legal
term - here is the first difference with the Anarchy model(1))
he may pay more.

If the publisher does not want it the author may bring it to
another one and get paid by both.

What happens after publishing? Different scenarios are possible,
depending on acceptance of the work by public. Author gets
popularity depending on his (one!) publisher marketing efforts
and abilities (2) - this is the second difference with the
Anarchy model. Next work may be sold for a greater price, if the
first one got famous.  In latter case publishers will compete
for the ability to get the next one first hand.

However, there is one new circumstance brought in by legally
extended printing monopoly: having secured some profitable
portfolio for at least 14 years a publisher may not be
interested to buy another book (3). Or he may buy it not for
publishing, but to prevent competitors from doing this (4). In
any case this is exactly what publishers fought for: to easy
their life on expense of public and this is how *printing
monopoly turns around and strips authors off of an income
instead of providing it.* Let's call it the 3-rd and the 4-th
news in the Copyright model to compare with the Anarchy one.
Late phenomenon fires back on a author: condemned to sell a work
to a single publisher, whoever he is, the author has to take
this fact in consideration and make some adjustments to the
work, which, generally speaking, undermines creativity (5) -
this is the fifth new feature brought in by printing monopoly.

The history says all these may or may not happen. Namely the
very first publisher may rob the author: will not give any
written promise, take the work and publish it under some other
name. Nonetheless this changes not much. If the first stolen
work brings considerable money, the second one will not be
stolen, but bought, because other publishers will intervene in
order to get it.

This variant, like within the Anarchy brings bad reputation to
the publisher-thief, so he must take it in account. Now, the
author may turn to a court and sue the publisher under copyright
law (6) and this will be the 6-th difference with the Anarchy
model. Of course, depending on copyright registration procedures
actual stealing may appear almost impossible in this case. OTOH,
if a stealing is not proved, the author lost his work forever.
Within the Anarchy model he may just compete with the
publisher-thief (7) and this will be the 7-th difference.
Anyway, law suit is always matter of proof and money.

Another news is the following. By the very nature of art we
(audience) develop personal relations with a work of art. These
are, in fact, the same as those with real people. The
differences only are in consequences of the relations. So, when
it comes to the access to some wanted work of art, there is no
substitution available, by definition. Yes, in practice you may
find something, but it is personally hurting like losing and
finding substitution to your loved ones. That is a printing
monopoly on one book allows the holder to rise the price as if
this book is the only one on the market (8) - here we have the
8th difference.

Another quite unexpected development would be promotion of
actual plagiarism (9). Plagiarism cannot survive within the
Anarchy model, because public is very sensitive to it and no
publisher would like to risk while all original works are in his
disposal; having copyright it is very tempting promote
something alike to a good-selling work with some formal
differences, which is actual plagiarism. This phenomenon makes
another contribution to compromising creativity, because a
publisher would prefer to buy described plagiarism instead of
something really new with uncertain projection for sale.

Here we enter yet another absolutely unacceptable consequence of
printing monopolies:  publishers' influence imposed on audiences
(10). Having secured portfolio for years, a publisher wants to
make sure all secured works would be salable. Thus publishers
must try to retard promotion of new ideas, new esthetic/style
approaches in arts, development of public tastes, must try to
fix current level of perception of arts as long as their
monopolies last. This trend must bear some inertia in it: while
investing money in retardation and fixing up public tastes
publishers further should try to get new works to fit the
picture thus contributing again in suppression of creativity.

Now, let's get back to the author. Suppose the first work does
not bring money, which means the author hasn't got any
popularity. The entire story starts over with the next work
then. However this would be harder for the author to start over
in the environment poisoned by publishing monopolies: publishers
having backed by their portfolios would not want to risk for the
author, which had not succeed already. It wouldn't matter if he
was just misunderstood genius.

Actually I used to think that the Copyright model was not that
bad than it appears now. It looks like it could completely
disrupt self-tuning market, applies pressure on a creator's mind
to give up to tastes of now-well-defended-publishers,
compromises creativity, promotes actual plagiarism. Its
important feature is that *ANY WORK MAY DISAPPEAR* unnoticed and
quite probably unpublished. High prices must overwhelm book
(art) market and undermine its development.

The last trend will bring in tensions in the industry and spur
up attempts to develop the initial monopoly even further in
order to secure vanishing profits. Actually these may come
forward even before markets shrink or regardless. As far as the
idea of monopoly considered to be a right one holders should
fight for it any time they think it is threatened and try to
always extend it.

3. Authoright. I want to explain some our guidelines to this
really simple model. We saw the Anarchy model provides pretty
good framework for culture and culture related markets to
develop. Still there is some uncertainty in terms of a author's
well being, some room for dishonesty and other anti-cultural
trends to exploit, thus it seems (just seems!) to be reasonable
to provide some kind of universal backing by society for culture
to be treated according its "law of nature". We assume: 1) that
main law of nature causing culture development is ultimate
freedom, 2) that cultural equivalent of physical stealing is
lie, 3) that culture while being properly managed will pay back
in infinitely greater degree to a author and society to compare
with current based on publishing monopolies situation.

The main features determining the Authoright model are:

A. No entity of any kind may own, control or regulate in any way
copying, sharing, distribution and any use of a idea, work of
art or any other creative work.

B. Every author has infinite unalienable right for attribution.
It is considered out of law for a *publisher* to use a creative
work without proper attribution.

C. Every publisher or any other entity *may* pay a author for
the right to be named his/her sponsor. The amount is for the
author to decide.

D. No company, organization or a group entity of any kind and
nature beyond actual author(s) may be considered a author for
any creative work, but sponsor only.

What I am going to do now, is to copy Copyright model text and
make changes to it when necessary. The differences with the
Anarchy model will also be noted. I shall number all the
specific outcomes of the model in parentheses.

Hence, Like within other two models, an author has to shop for a
publisher. He may never find one and thus end of the story.
However, we have to note now, this kind of 'end' is essentially
less probable here (and within Anarchy, as well) than in the
environment poisoned by publishing monopolies: as far as it is
much more difficult to secure a portfolio for considerable time,
it is essentially for a publisher to be first in finding a new
work or discovering a new author (0a).

Suppose he did find a publisher. He may conduct preliminary
negotiations before let his work go.

Suppose he got some result, like: in case the work is accepted
than the author will be paid such and such. Happy end in the
very beginning. Some variants are still possible. This kind of
end is more probable here than having publishing monopolies in
place: author and his new work are much more valuable assets now
(0b).

If publisher wants exclusive rights (until work to be published)
he may pay more. The same story happens within other models.
Differences lay in time frames only, but this affects publishing
only. We saw that monopolies bring nothing good here.

If the publisher does not want it the author may bring it to
another one and get paid by both and this is valuable for each
of them: to be the first and to be a sponsor at the same time.
This variant seems unlikely to happen in conjunction with
legitimate publishing monopolies though.

What happens after publishing? Different scenarios are possible,
depending on acceptance of the work by public. Anyway the author
gets more and more popularity as far as other publishers may do
his work until it brings any money. So they all actually
advertise him(1). If second hand publisher wants to be branded
he may pay the author so that the publisher will be the a
author's announced sponsor (2).

Next work will be sold for a greater price, if the first one got
famous.  In latter case publishers will compete for the ability
to get the next one first hand. It is important to underline
that having no possibility to secure some prolonged income
publishers must be really fast to grab any new work to do. This
is important in terms to provide incentives for authors. What is
even more important that a author is really *FREE TO CREATE*
now, has no necessity to adjust to anyone's taste, but to his
imaginary interlocutors only. Having his name protected by law
author knows that he will be judged by his work only, not by a
publisher marketing machine.

All these may or may not happen. The very first publisher may
rob the author: will not give any written promise, take the work
and publish it under some other name. Nonetheless this changes
not much. If the first stolen work brings considerable money,
the second one will not be stolen, but bought, because other
publishers will intervene in order to get it.

This variant, OTOH brings bad reputation to the publisher-thief,
so he must take it in account. Now, the author may turn to a
court and sue the publisher under Authoright law. There is no
much difference between Copyright and Authoright models at this
point. In particular, depending on Authoright registration
procedures, actual stealing (which is stealing of name, nothing
else!) may appear almost impossible in this case. And even if
the stealing happened, but is not proved, the author may just
compete with the publisher-thief (3).

Now, remember, we were discussing earlier, that by the very
nature of art we (audience) develop personal relations with a
work of art. These, in fact, are the same as those with real
people. The difference is only in consequences of the relations.
So, when it comes to the access to some wanted work of art,
there is no substitution available, by definition. Yes, in
practice you may find something, but it is personally hurting
like losing and finding substitution to your loved ones. That is
a printing monopoly on one book allows its holder *to rise the
price as if this book is the only one on the market*, which *is
absolutely impossible within the Authoright* environment, where
a work of art is accessible to everyone to publish since the
very moment it was published first hand (4).

We also remember another quite unexpected development within the
Copyright or publishing monopoly model, which is promotion of
actual plagiarism wrapped in hypocrisy: having copyright it is
very tempting to promote something alike to a good-selling work
with some formal differences. This absolutely makes no sense
within the Anarchy and Authoright models, because public is very
sensitive to plagiarism and no publisher would like to risk his
reputation while all original works are in his disposal. Thus
while promoted by publishing monopoly plagiarism makes another
contribution to compromising creativity, Authoright definitely
promotes creativity since it gives birth to the natural strive
for original works (5).

Authoright would also *diminish* another absolutely unacceptable
consequence of printing monopolies: publishers' influence
imposed on audiences (6). As far as they cannot secure any
portfolio for a period of time greater that one necessary to
prepare a work for publishing, a publisher has no interest in
fixing or some other way organizing public taste. On the
contrary, as far as everybody is going after something new in
such environment, it is better to have public capable to
understand any new trends in arts. Thus it would be in the best
publishers' interest to push public to learn, to develop
understanding of esthetic principles and so forth.

Now, let's get back to the author. Suppose the first work does
not bring money, which means the author hasn't got any
popularity. The entire story starts over with the next work
then. Another start is likely to be easier in the Authoright
environment, where publishers and public are in ongoing hunt for
new works and authors.

Summary. Authoright model comprises advantages of the Anarchy
and Copyright ones, while bears not their disadvantages:

1. Alike to the Anarchy environment, an author may sell his work
either literary fixed in some media or in the form of
sponsorship as many times as he gets. However, within
environment poisoned by publishing monopolies he actually
condemned to one time sale.

2. Alike to the Anarchy environment, an author gets promoted by
multiple publishers. However, within environment poisoned by
publishing monopolies he entirely depends on good will and
marketing abilities of one publisher.

3. Alike to the Anarchy environment, an author is free and
encouraged to create really new, and on the other hand, meets no
restrictions to learn from others.

4. Alike to the Anarchy environment, market are flooded with
works of art in spectrum of content, quality and prices.

5. Alike to the Anarchy environment, virtually no work may
diminish unpublished or even unnoticed.

6. Alike to the copyrights driven environment, an author has his
name protected by the mandatory attribution.

7. Alike (somewhat) to the copyright driven environment, no
entity may call itself a author's sponsor unless pays sum of
money they agreed upon.

8. In very general terms the Authoright driven environment
creates highly competitive, aggressively growing markets with
common intention towards the great New, providing
market/competition driven incentives to authors and
publishers...

... which is exactly what we all want?

Anatoly

A discussion may always bring valuable fruits if interlocutors
assume responsibility for every single word they say. That is
they respect logic and each other, that is they are honest. I
derived 7 checkpoints to make sure I meet my responsibilities in
a discussion: 1. Always answer, and always answer to that exact
question or argument, which is stated by your opponent; 2. Do
not use fallacies, which actually means: never change premises
of your opponent; 3. Do not hang on every single word, but try
to keep up with the whole and ideas; 4. If disagree with a
language, argue this separately; 5. Try to be short;  6. If
cannot answer, state this openly; 7. If want to change the rule
set, state this openly.

http://www.total-knowledge.com





_______________________________________________


------------------------
http://www.anti-dmca.org
------------------------

DMCA_Discuss mailing list
DMCA_Discuss@lists.microshaft.org
http://lists.microshaft.org/mailman/listinfo/dmca_discuss
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]