Quote:
Originally Posted by Sands
I'm not sure I understand your first statement. With "original research", do you mean on the actual experiment level, or on the level of the author who researches through published literature? If it is the former then I would say that the revenue model for a university, and creating budgets for research projects might be different from the standard "make something and sell it to people" process. If it's the latter, then the cost of research, both time and money, is considerable... and that's part of the production process (the effort). The author can easily get a decent return on his investment by selling to the finished product to hundreds, thousands, or millions of people.
If he can't sell it then he's not getting a return on his investment of time and money. Please correct me if I'm misinterpreting what you've said.
|
Well, not all research is done by universities. There are many different research institutes, bureaus, etc. In many cases, research is an actual product.
However, as soon as their findings become public, anyone is free to cite their work, and include their findings in new papers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sands
As for your example, it's a good one and certainly not easy for me to answer. Does the poet expect a return on his investment? Do the publishers? Is distributing this single poem going to create an unacceptable fiscal drain for either?
However, I'm a bit uneasy comparing a single poem with a single hit song, especially songs that are professionally produced. You don't need a recording studio for a poem, or a marketing team, and so the costs of creating and publishing a hit song are massive compared to a poem. It is in my opinion that one poem vs. one professionally produced song is comparing apples and oranges when considering the production costs of both.
This is a great discussion, and I look forward to your reply.  |
I'd think that poets and their publishers hope to make a profit, especially if they're professionals.
As for the costs of production... I actually know poets who spend weeks on a single poem, so the costs in terms of labor of that would be huge. Plus, remember that quite a few bands manage to create fantastic music on shoestring budgets.
Marketing costs and the inflated costs of professional production, meanwhile, to me seem to simply point out that music is a more profitable industry than poetry. However, that doesn't exactly justify a greater degree of protection for the music.
Moreover, music has alternative streams of income. Aside from recordings, there are shows, t-shirts, advertisements, etc.
But even if you ignore all that, you can still look at something else: mixtapes. Making a mixtape for friends used to be quite common. Should that be considered "illegal violation of copyrights"? Should someone who makes a mixtape for his girlfriend be fined or thrown in prison?