For digital the benefit to the author of going with a publisher is nearly non existant.
As a self published author, you get 70% of whatever you price your book at. As a traditionally published author with a digital release, I think it is around 12-25% of the profit. That is after the 30% the distribution service (Amazon) takes and whatever other expenses the publisher claims. Often this ends up as less than 10% the list price.
So what do you want, 70% of a $3 book or 10% of a $10 book?
I love how you leave off the part of the Copyright Clause that says the way to promote the progress is to grant exclusive rights to authors. No doubt you'd erase that from the Constitution if you could. Best just to pretend it's not there, right?
That is not misleading. Mike was explicitly talking about the purpose of copyright. You are confusing the purpose of copyright with the method. The purpose of copyright is not to grant a monopoly, that is the method.
Since the purpose of copyright is to promote science and useful arts, then we should be framing any and all discussions of the method of copyright in those terms. Is the approach we are currently taking or plan on taking going to promote the science and useful arts? IS there a better way to promote the science and useful arts?
What about all those people who now have a strike against their YouTube account because of these takedowns? Will Sega work with YouTube and those users to remove that strike or will those users simply forever be branded because of this disaster?
How exactly does upholding these insane statutory damage fees actually support artists? Is all that money going to go to the artists who wrote and/or performed the songs she uploaded? No. None of it is.
That is stepping aside from the real issue that these damages will actually erode what respect of copyright the average person holds. When they hear that uploading 24 songs will get you fined hundreds of thousands of dollars, they are just going to laugh and go right on doing what they do everyday with the addition of complaining about how one sided copyright law has become.
Yep. Wiley will most likely raise the price in those markets to make buying, importing and selling much more difficult to do while making a profit. At the same time, they will be pricing themselves out of local markets resulting in more governments like Ghana resorting to piracy to stock their schools.
We don't have to think about copyright terms at all (except perhaps for things that should be in the public domain to begin with). All we have to consider is price. Is it cheap where you want to buy it? Yes. Will you make a profit selling here? Yes. Then you have a business model.
"The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."
The problem is not that 2 people in 7billion would come up with the same solution to the same problem. The problem is that 2 people in the same narrow expertise would come up with the same solution to the same problem. The fewer the number of people in a field and the more specialized the field, the more likely it is that individuals would independently come up with the same solution to the same problem.
There is no other way to consider it. That is the purpose of the obviousness requirement. It is not to measure whether a moron in a hurry would come up with the same idea, it is to measure if a software engineer would be able to write the same "software" a patent would cover or any other field of expertise..
I don't particularly like the insinuation that Mormons in particular support this kind of legislation. This kind of legislation has an emotional appeal to a vast array of emotional and shortsighted people of all faiths and lack thereof.
"I tell you, a clever person would form a political party."
People have been forming new parties for years now with little luck. The major problem with that idea is that the two major parties have so entrenched themselves in government and media that it is nearly impossible to gain national party status consistently between the 50 states. If you do manage to gain status in all 50 states, the problem then becomes a matter of exposure. With most media outlets being run by entrenched players in the current two parties, getting serious air time on their networks is near impossible.
Do we need new parties? Yes. Yes we do. However, short of a revolution, it will be near impossible for such an effort to take hold in the minds of the people.