So how do you propose that money is made out of books then? I think the actual problem lies in dropping my standards to include harebrained schemes that even you admit won’t work.
What cold hard cash? You are yet to come up with a model that doesn’t result in large amounts of present IP vanishing due to lack of funding.
Like I said: the same way I proposed for software and music in this very thread. I’m not explaining it again just for you.
Read the context for that statement–for example, the sentence that came right after it, which you clipped out of the quote–and you’ll see that we were talking about a compulsory license system under which authors would be paid royalties when their work is distributed or built into derivative works (but wouldn’t have veto power over such use).
Again, my goal is to give the public back the rights that copyright law has taken away, not to ensure that all forms of artistic endeavor are funded at today’s levels. But even you must agree that moving to compulsory licensing wouldn’t have nearly the same effect on the funding process as my first proposal (the “demand pool” - thanks, JRD).
Is this the scheme you set out in post #89?
OK, missed that. Sorry. I’ll try to keep up.