[free-sklyarov] Another ebook "processor"

[Bob Smart]

On Saturday 18 August 2001 10:56, you wrote:

> > Ummm...actually, not it most definitely is NOT the original intent.
> > Copyright was established as a mechanism to enrich society, and any
> > economic incentives for authors that accompany it are merely the means
> > to that end, not the end itself.
>
> Believe me, I understand the concept.  Authors are granted an income
> stream so that society may benefit from their writings.  Without the
> monopoly-derived profit, no writing.  Without a public benefit, no
> justification for the monopoly grant.

Ummm...no, PUBLISHERS get the income.  Authors get pennies, publishers get 
the real money.  And yet, inequitable as that system is, writers continue to 
write.  If enrichment of authors truly were the purpose of copyright, it 
would be an amazingly ineffective system.

In fact, some of the greatest literature, music, and other art of all time 
was created under NO system of copyrights AT ALL.  Writing for purely 
commercial purposes produces...slasher sequels and mindless, derivative 
sitcoms.

> You're now on to a different (though interesting in its own way) topic.
> Note however that a world in which authors aren't allowed to sell at
> least limited rights would be one in which they couldn't profit.  Again,
> I agree that present circumstances are often rather unfortunate.

Could it possibly be that there are many other reasons for writing (or 
painting, or composing) besides profit?  If profit were really the force that 
drives authors to write, our system of allocating the bulk of the money to 
publishers at the expense of authors would have already put an end to 
writing.  Saying that writers wouldn't write without big paychecks is like 
claiming that without prostitutes, there would be no children.

This system we have today has NOTHING to do with "protecting" or "promoting" 
artists, and everything to do with exploiting them in what was until recently 
their utter helplessness.

Now, to return this to something at least vaguely Sklyarov-related: Dmitry 
isn't even accused of doing anything wrong to authors or making illegal 
copies, nor is anybody else accused of using his software for such a purpose! 
All his software does is enable people to access the books they've already 
paid for (whoever actually got the money) and even THAT is more than our 
current system of institutionalized intellectual parasitism can stomach.  
Encrypted books now effectively no longer enter the public domain AT ALL, no 
matter how long we wait, because the encryption never self-disables and it's 
illegal to "traffic" in the tools to make fully legal, legitimate access to 
the material.

The public clearly does not benefit from pay-per-view publishing, and neither 
do the authors--so who, exactly, are you defending?

----------------------------------------
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; charset="us-ascii"; 
name="Attachment: 1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Description: 
----------------------------------------

-- 

What I wrote above is hereby dedicated to the public domain and may be freely 
used, in whole or in part, with or without attribution.