Page:Culture.vs.Copyright 01.pdf/110

 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