Page:Culture.vs.Copyright 01.pdf/109

 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