On Ma, 07 aug 12, 09:39:54, Celejar wrote: > > > to be very important/inovative/etc. actually had a hard time getting > > published. How many others did not make it? > > Not sure what you're saying here - do you mean that the creators > couldn't publish because there was insufficient perceived interest > (and they didn't have the funding / determination / interest to > self-publish), or because they transferred the rights to a publisher > who sat on the works and declined to do anything with them? Both, but probably the former is more common. > > The internet levels the playing field and basically allows anyone to > > publish their works with minimal resources. Eventually the content > > consumers may realise that the value of a creation is rarely directly > > proportional to the resources invested in creating, replicating and > > distributing it. > > Agreed, but I'm not sure how this effects our disagreement about the > legitimacy of the (current) intellectual regime. If they feel the value > is less than the amount charged by the creators to recoup their costs, > they're free not to purchase the works. I did not question the legitimacy, but the future-proof-ness of a business relying on distributing copies. Kind regards, Andrei -- Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature