to convince a powerful publisher to market his work. On the other hand, a publisher with exclusive rights is interested in promoting the work, no matter how bad it is—this is the eleventh difference from the Self-tuning model.
Summary
I used to think that the copyright model was not as pathetic as it
appears now. It appears to be totally disruptive for any normal market
development. A toxic copyright-driven environment pressures a
creator to give in to the tastes of publishers. It compromises creativity
in at least three ways, as seen above. Copyright promotes effective
plagiarism. In this monopoly-based environment, any work of art
may disappear unnoticed, regardless of how brilliant it is. High prices
suppress the book and art markets’ normal development.
This last trend causes tension in the industry and spurs attempts to
extend the initial monopoly even further in order to restore vanishing
profits. Actually, such attempts manifest themselves even before the
market shrinks. As long as the idea of monopoly is considered proper,
rights holders desire it and religiously fight to extend it.
The copyright trick amazes me more and more. It adversely affects culture and civilization in many ways, while it helps big publishers to more easily go about their business. It is noteworthy that nobody even knows whether “easily” means more profitable or just the opposite!
Authoright
I want to reiterate some of the guidelines of this really simple model. We saw that the Self-tuning model provides a good framework for cultural and culture-related business development. Still, the author’s well-being is uncertain because publishers are not required to attribute. Thus, it seems to make sense for society to require attribution. What about other features of this model? Based on the ideas presented in previous chapters, I assume the following:
- The natural law of culture that results in its normal development is ultimate freedom.
