The issue of the ownership rules and copyright rules

The purpose of almost all the comercial companies is to profit from the demand of consumers. Whereas, the purpose of the consumer is to have more for less money. To confront this issue, the ownership rules and copyright laws are made by the distributors who pursue their own interests. When the purpose of the consumer and distributor intersect the questions always arises: Do people have to pay if there is the way not to pay? Are the restriction laws only made for owners of the product to benefit from the consumers? But what is obvious is that the distributor should not play an import role in consumer-creator interaction. Until eliminating the distributor from the creator-consumer interaction, neither creator nor consumer would benefit from the product.

Distributors earn money from out of the blue; if to be concrete, they benefit from the authors talent and ability to create a product which would meet consumers’ demand. When a consumer buys a product, he pays, firstly, for the distributor but not for the true creator of the product. Pat Reynolds writes “In 1952 the publishers (Allen and Unwin) estimated the price for a single volume of The Lord of The Rings would be at least £3 10s”. If we assume that distributors, in our case publishers, gave fifty percent of all the profit to Tolkien we can figure out that he got half of the profit. If we also consider that Tolkien distributed the product by himself and got the same profit, it is obvious that the price for his book would cost twice less than the price established by the publishers. Therefore, if the distributor would be eliminated from the consumer-creator interaction, the products would be much cheaper and vast amount of profit would go into the pockets of authors rather than the distributors.

It may seem impossible for the authors to contribute their work without having distributors. Authors worried about unauthorized publications of their books. In the article entitled “My Word”, Susan Blum says “Booksellers worried about pirates; authors worried about unauthorized publications of their books.” She also brings up the question about “Did the copyright laws protect authors or booksellers?” Blum points out that “those seeking to extend the copyright were booksellers rather than authors.” Hence, it is obvious that copyright is protecting the interests of booksellers rather than the authors' because most of the profit from selling the intellectual work of an author goes into pockets of booksellers. However, with the rapid growth of the internet, authors are able to distribute their works without participation of booksellers. Moreover, authors may apply copyright laws to the electronic versions of the material posted on the internet. This copyright would protect only authors rather than distributors, and the intellectual labor of an author would cost less than the price posted by booksellers.

Finally, by eliminating the distributors from the creator—consumer interaction, both creators and consumers will profit. The purpose of the distributor would not intersect with the purpose of the consumer which would not allow consumers to worry about the restriction laws.