4 ms·
You're talking to the wrong person. I entirely agree with J. K. Rowling's right to earn millions from her writing. Because that's what people were willing to pa
by averagewall 10y ago
You're talking to the wrong person. I entirely agree with J. K. Rowling's right to earn millions from her writing. Because that's what people were willing to pay her for it. How else can we decide how to take money from one person and give it to another besides the market? Who do you want to pay that money? The taxpayer? Are you wanting free income for every author, artist, game player or hobbiest so they don't have to suffer unpleasant work? That might well be a valid idea but it's quite different from what you said. How do you "earn" a living when you're supported by charity?
Edit: What are you proposing instead of the current market situation? Do you want publishers to do something different? Governments? GoogFaceAzons? Readers? The general populace?
- Mz 10y agoThese comments usually occur in discussions about online ads. That isn't charity. Your assertion that it is charity is ridiculous.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- the_cat_kittles 10y agodo drug smugglers deserve millions? do cheating athletes who aren't caught deserve millions? do patent trolls deserve millions? do televangelists deserve millions? do oil and mining companies that destroy the environment deserve millions?
- averagewall 10y agoThese are different problems. We're talking about authors and artists here. How and why should authors be paid for producing work that nobody wants? Should somebody else pay authors to pursue their hobby even when it doesn't provide much value to others?
- the_cat_kittles 10y agoi agree its hard to know what to pay. but i think you would rather have a contented artist producing work that you were indifferent to, than a highly paid patent troll, right?
- flukus 10y agoThey are all producing something people are willing to pay for.
- tormeh 10y agoThat's an argument against basing compensation on what people are willing to pay for.