The question is, how could the same mechanism work in such a
contradictory fashion—to back both monopolies for the “big guys”
and provide incentives for the smallest ones, the “starving artists?”
Across centuries and among countries, publishing monopolies
have clearly proven to be useful only to governments and big
publishers. The pretext proffered to the public is that said
monopolies protect authors, promote creativity, develop culture, etc.
Has this ever been proven in reality? The answer is: No. Much
speculation has been produced but never any proof.
Publishing Monopoly or Copyright
While analyzing below how copyright works, I am going to determine the differences between the two models.
Scenarios
Well, our author has to shop for a publisher. He may never find one,
thus end of story.
Suppose he finds a publisher. He may conduct preliminary
negotiations before having his book published. Suppose his work is
accepted. The author will be paid a certain amount of money. If the
sum is considerable, there is a happy ending. There is no difference
from Self-tuning so far.
If the publisher wants exclusive rights or a monopoly, he may
pay more. This monopoly will last for the period of time determined
by law; this is the first difference from the Self-tuning model.
If the publisher does not want exclusive rights, the author can
take a copy of the manuscript to another publisher and get paid by
both. However, this is not likely to happen, because nowadays the
idea of exclusivity is ingrained in people’s minds. Due to a
copyright-driven “business model,” no publisher would accept a
work if it is being handled by another publisher.
What happens after publication? This depends on how well the
work is accepted by the public. The author gets exposure depending
