The Anarchy model is based mostly on contractual law, so eventually, publishers, after getting considerable economical power may (and, history says, they have) plot to contract authors and conduct publishing in a copyright-like manner. That is, they would try to secure their portfolios and thus revenues for some time. The next step will definitely be an attempt to make it universal and to have a government backing this, so to strip authors' abilities to dictate conditions. This is what happened in 1710 in England.
Before then, for about two hundred years, the Crown resisted the demands of licensed scribes to limit the freedom of the spread of the printing press and free publishing. In 1710, the Crown was eager to get rid of anonymous pamphlet writers, so the government's desire for effective censorship met with publishers' desire for easier money and thus brought about the Statute of Queen Anne. It is even more interesting that actually the same law (in its basic features: 14+14 years of limited printing monopoly) was later adopted in the US in order to provide ``the progress of science and useful arts.''
The question is, how could the same mechanism work in such contradictory directions: to back monopolies for big guys and, at the same time, to provide incentives for ``starving artists?''
Through centuries and countries publishing monopolies have definitely proved to be practical for governments and big publishers. The pretext being upheld that it is to protect authors, creativity, culture, education, etc. May I ask: has this ever been proved to work, in reality? Let us see what we can.
- Войдите, чтобы оставлять комментарии