Page:Culture.vs.Copyright 01.pdf/25

 Gamma: Hmm. Let me see. … If artworks were not free to use, each publisher would have his own stack of books. Teacher: Oh yes, that’s true on our planet. Publishers feel safe with their portfolios. Gamma: Yeah, but if it’s free to use by anyone, no publisher feels safe with his own “portfolio” and has to search continually for more good stuff … Alpha: So? Beta: So, any new work gets attention, no matter what! Delta: Yes, yes! If it is downright brilliant, there is always someone to grab it and show it off! Kappa: Delta, get down off your desk, please. Why are you getting excited so easily?

A Flaw in the Common Perception Alpha: I don’t understand why they are free to use a work. Why shouldn’t they pay the author? It is so simple and reasonable. Gamma: Is it? That’s what I thought yesterday too, but now I’m not so sure. Beta: Why should they pay if it works anyway? Alpha: … An author can be granted exclusive rights for publishing and trade them off … Beta: And how does he get exposed then? Alpha: Listen, Beta, I’m not calling you nuts now, but you don’t understand the simplest things. The author sells his rights, the buyer advertises and sells the work. Is that so complicated to you? Beta: It isn’t, except it won’t work for the author! Alpha: Why on the earth won’t it! Beta: Because, with your scenario, the author depends entirely on that one buyer, his capabilities, intentions, and good will. The author’s fame is limited and cannot be anywhere near that fame he could enjoy from the entire competing publishing community! Teacher: We can say “exposure” instead of “fame.” Beta: OK, “exposure.” The author’s exposure is limited in Alpha’s scenario. Alpha: I don’t buy it! Kappa: That’s easy to say, Alpha.