4 ms·

The exact opposite would happen. No publisher would pay very much for rights to a book that they cannot defend. Once that book hits the shelves, everyone with a

The exact opposite would happen. No publisher would pay very much for rights to a book that they cannot defend. Once that book hits the shelves, everyone with a printing press will be copying it and selling it at cost, which will undercut the first publisher because they need to include royalties in the price. They certainly aren't going to print a million copies if they aren't sure that they can sell them before someone starts copying them, so that would naturally limit the size of launches, further driving down the value of a manuscript. There'd be a small first-mover advantage for being the first to print a book and smaller operations not worth copying would still operate but J.K. Rowling wouldn't be a billionaire.

zozbot234 7y ago
In this case, the "rights" would not be those of a book publisher but those of a patron/sponsor. Being among the persons or corporate entities who e.g. J.K. Rowling officially acknowledges as the "sponsors" of her work would create a lot of clout, and with that a lot of very real value. Authors used to be funded like that before the current copyright-based system became predominant; it's not just a theoretical model.
- henryfjordan 7y ago
  I suppose she'd be able to sell "official copies" or something akin to that, but no matter what she's still not capturing as much of the value she created if she cannot assert a copyright. There's also nothing in copyright law precluding her from also getting sponsors. If anything, copyright law makes it clearer where everyone stands and so makes connecting writers and sponsors (or employers through a work-for-hire agreement) much easier.
  - zozbot234 7y ago
    > she's still not capturing as much of the value she created if she cannot assert a copyright No one's disputing that. But she's also creating a lot more value at the same time. It's a wash.
    - icebraining 7y ago
      It's not a wash for her, though, which may change her decisions to actually produce the work.
- megaman821 7y ago
  If the model is so good, what is preventing her from doing it now? There is nothing in law saying you have to copyright your books, she could simply release it under creative commons. What even qualifies you to know what is best for authors and publishers? I love how so many people love volunteering other peoples work for free or propose they jump through hoop in some byzantine system to make money in a way that is acceptable to you.
  - danharaj 7y ago
    Copyright has the force of the state behind it obviously it's going to beat out any solution that doesn't.
  - icebraining 7y ago
    > I love how so many people love volunteering other peoples work for free or propose they jump through hoop in some byzantine system to make money in a way that is acceptable to you. Yes, that's called democracy. Copyright must be a system that is acceptable to most of us. In fact, copyright itself is more "byzantine" than just having the State issue a stipend to anyone who produces a work of art - yet must we be OK with such a solution? Similarly, Joseph Galambos considered that people who coined words were due a royalty when they were used. Is is unfair that we decide to use that work for free instead?
Finnucane 7y ago
In the days before the Berne convention, US publishers copied British books without paying the authors, which of course made the British authors unhappy. In some cases, because there was a bit of a first mover advantage, publishers would send their agents to London to acquire copies of the plates for popular authors as quickly as possible, and were willing to pay a fee for this.

zozbot234 7y ago

In this case, the "rights" would not be those of a book publisher but those of a patron/sponsor. Being among the persons or corporate entities who e.g. J.K. Rowling officially acknowledges as the "sponsors" of her work would create a lot of clout, and with that a lot of very real value. Authors used to be funded like that before the current copyright-based system became predominant; it's not just a theoretical model.

henryfjordan 7y ago
I suppose she'd be able to sell "official copies" or something akin to that, but no matter what she's still not capturing as much of the value she created if she cannot assert a copyright. There's also nothing in copyright law precluding her from also getting sponsors. If anything, copyright law makes it clearer where everyone stands and so makes connecting writers and sponsors (or employers through a work-for-hire agreement) much easier.
- zozbot234 7y ago
  > she's still not capturing as much of the value she created if she cannot assert a copyright No one's disputing that. But she's also creating a lot more value at the same time. It's a wash.
  - icebraining 7y ago
    It's not a wash for her, though, which may change her decisions to actually produce the work.
megaman821 7y ago
If the model is so good, what is preventing her from doing it now? There is nothing in law saying you have to copyright your books, she could simply release it under creative commons. What even qualifies you to know what is best for authors and publishers? I love how so many people love volunteering other peoples work for free or propose they jump through hoop in some byzantine system to make money in a way that is acceptable to you.
- danharaj 7y ago
  Copyright has the force of the state behind it obviously it's going to beat out any solution that doesn't.
- icebraining 7y ago
  > I love how so many people love volunteering other peoples work for free or propose they jump through hoop in some byzantine system to make money in a way that is acceptable to you. Yes, that's called democracy. Copyright must be a system that is acceptable to most of us. In fact, copyright itself is more "byzantine" than just having the State issue a stipend to anyone who produces a work of art - yet must we be OK with such a solution? Similarly, Joseph Galambos considered that people who coined words were due a royalty when they were used. Is is unfair that we decide to use that work for free instead?

Finnucane 7y ago

In the days before the Berne convention, US publishers copied British books without paying the authors, which of course made the British authors unhappy. In some cases, because there was a bit of a first mover advantage, publishers would send their agents to London to acquire copies of the plates for popular authors as quickly as possible, and were willing to pay a fee for this.