Regarding copyright and reproduction: copyright is not necessary "to recover their money on the original production" in the following situations:
*anything done on commission (architecture,sculpture,musical composition etc) *concerts, plays, operas, circuses (or -- at least most of them - excluding the big hit musicals, I suppose, where licensing seems to be such a cash cow) *literature (because there is no cost in the original production -- other than time -- and today, with the internet, there is even no cost to publication) I realize that copyright was essential to your career as a publisher -- as it has been to mine as record dealer -- but I question its importance regarding the cultivation of the arts. (where "cultivation" involves both sufficient financial support and achieving standards of quality) Regarding Jane Austen, it seems to me that the publication of her work had little financial impact on her life until 1813 ( 3 years before she died) It was a result, but not a necessary condition for her literary career. You can ask "how many possibly useful/desirable works were NOT being written and published" before copyright became law --- but I can ask how much good literature has been lost because writers abused their talents to better exploit a popular market. And nobody can answer either question. ____________________________________________________________ Come clean with a brand new shower. Click now! http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/BLSrjnxSDID88MwyqI6o0b8w3pVqLE Hkx9Qem4s4UO5ByCLtoHiBEMgH6eM/
