on the marketing efforts and abilities of his sole publisher. This
is the second difference from the Self-tuning model. The author’s
next work may garner more money if the first one became famous.
In this case, publishers compete for the opportunity to be the first in
line—if the author did not sell the rights in advance.
There is another circumstance fostered by the legally enforced
printing monopoly: having secured a certain amount of work for a
prolonged amount of time, a publisher may not be interested in
buying another book. This is the third difference. Or he may buy it
not in order to publish it, but to prevent competitors from doing so—
the fourth difference. In any case, this is exactly what big publishers
have fought for: easier lives at the expense of the public and authors.
This is how the printing monopoly strips authors of potential income
instead of providing it. The latter phenomenon affects an author in yet
another way. The author, condemned to selling his work to just one
publisher, has to consider this dilemma and make adjustments to his
work. This trend plainly undermines creativity—the fifth difference.
This last feature of the copyright-driven environment is of specific
interest because it directly contradicts the proclaimed goal of exclusive
rights: to provide for “the progress of science and useful arts.”
What if a publisher robs the author: he does not give any written
assurance, takes the work and publishes it under another name?
This changes the situation dramatically. Having exclusive rights,
the publisher can prevent other publishers from acquiring the work
and thus is assured that no one ever learns who the real author is
—the sixth difference.
However, this variant can result in a poor reputation for the
publisher-thief. Moreover, the author may turn to the courts and
sue the publisher under copyright law—the seventh difference. But
again, if the theft is not proven, the author has lost his work forever.
Another new feature requires explanation. Remember, because of
the very nature of art, we, the audience, develop personal relationships
with a work of art. We noted earlier that these relationships are, in fact,
very similar in nature to those with real people. The only difference
is the consequences. If a desired work of art is not accessible, no
substitute would suffice. If you want to read the Bible, only the Bible
will do; if you want The Lord of the Rings, then you want only The Lord
Page:Culture.vs.Copyright 01.pdf/110
This page has been validated.
92
Culture vs. Copyright