The way creators’ creations are treated today is not substantially different from slavery. Creative works are forced to be sold out by the creators to the distributors through the distributors’ monopoly. A creator cannot survive unless they sign with a distributor, because, otherwise, the distributor would not give them access to rights which would normally be unalienable; for instance, the ability to remix songs of others. Furthermore, a creator would not be listened to unless they sign with a distributor, because of the chilling effect the copyright lobby has imposed on any broadcaster: The fear that broadcasting any content which is beyond the control of conglomerates would potentially amount to an extremely expensive copyright infringement (copyright holders have gone to such extends with this that they will even send a takedown notice to the people they themselves have stolen from). Creators therefore sell the exclusive rights to their creations, forfeiting their copyrights, and giving them out by a contract. The mere ability to do this is irrational.
The term is compelling. However, the author has presented his view point against the idea of copyright and ensuring academic freedom. In the addendum, he refers to it as an idea and presents a coherent case for getting rid of the corporate controls.
Here’s something that I wish to high;ight:
This reform will empower creators to renegotiate their terms when their content becomes popular, or threaten pulling out of a deal, giving them significant leverage to increase their profits. It would allow creators to publish their own works as they see fit on their personal website without being threatened with being sued, and would necessarily limit the audacious amount publisher charge government-funded libraries to remove paywalls, as most scientific works would be available online for free. It would encourage creativity and innovation, as content creators would be free to remix others’ artworks, given that no distributor would hold exclusive copyrights to anything.
This is in line with what I have always advocated. Open Access has no meaning because they are effectively making money from “copyright”+ licensing+authors+ advertisers. Individual journals don’t make much money but in aggregate, the publishing industry rakes in millions.