This also tends to be an asymmetric relationship: creators tend to be individuals while publishers tend to be large corporate enterprises with the ability and know-how to bury you. In other words, people who make new works are stuck with all the costs, while people who sell copies get all the profit.
The "why" is that distribution is always cheaper than production of creative works. The initial idea was how much? 10 years ? 15 years? How come that let's say Beatles are still protected from public? How that even possible and why nobody rises the issue of abusing initial idea? Isn't it a case now days of redundant MIM?Īnother issue is with how long it is blocked by paywall. It looks more like some bully simply blocks access to something he got using some leverage over the author then sells you 'unblock' feature while author is stripped away from any rights by the same bully and have no ability to sell it directly to you. But if you are trying to think about it's more and more unclear. It's all presented as you buy something and it's clear what you buy. If it's my property then what is it? Is it a property at all if the usage of it is limited? For instance it belongs to me but somehow there are some limits to play it in my own restaurant, isn't it? What do I actually possess after the purchase that I didn't possess before? The right to listen it more then one time because I have access to the file? The right to listen it in that specific mp3 format ? The right to listen for some composition? The whole 'buy mp3' idea always have been troubling for me because I can't figure out exactly what I actually buy there. What a web site providing access to the music has to do with it? Pirates rob ships in the see and use guns for that purpose I presume.
0 kommentar(er)
