3 ms·

> For books authors generally get a percentage of revenue (with some caveats) which is even better. Yes and it's very small. Like less than 10% You make more

> For books authors generally get a percentage of revenue (with some caveats) which is even better. Yes and it's very small. Like less than 10% You make more money by autoproducing. Very few authors make money with books. > Is that a necessarily positive outcome? Even if you don't believe that authors should have the right to excise creative control over their work Please, stop using this false dichotomy and to pur words in my mouth. You have to stop talking like what you're saying is true, what is true and what usually happens is Felix Salten that sells the story of Bambi to a movie director for a thousand dollars, the director then sell it to Disney, Disney wins 4 oscars and makes a pile of money out of it while Salten dies alone in Zurich few years later without even being mentioned in the Disney movie. The English translation has also a complete different meaning than the original German one. Talking about creative control... The story of the copyright of Bambi is interesting because after Salten death his daughter fought for the rights and after a few controversial rulings, her husband, that continued after Salten's daughter's death, won. But that means two things - nobody knows what the original author would have wanted, but others that never wrote a single line of the book claimed the rights - with that ruling the US courts basically said that as long as someone renew the copyright, it can well be ethernal, there is no need to be authors, there is no right to creative control (which is granted BTW for being the author, that has nothing to do with copyright, you conflate the two things constantly) it's all about the money In the end those holding the copyrights most of the times are not the authors, Disney wrote none of the stories that made him rich and famous. So the rethoric about poor authors not being compensated it's completely fabricated, it's already happening, it always happened. It's the "think of the children" of the publishing world.

qwytw 5y ago
You think you're mostly right. The one thing that bothers me is that you seem to be suggesting that because the current system is bad for most authors we should replace it a system that's bad for ALL authors (i.e. instead of introducing sensible limits or restricting the ability of corporate entities to hold copyright, or allowing authors to renegotiate their contracts based on the actual revenue earned you're basically suggesting removing it all together (the 20 year limit is simply infeasible due to the arguments from my previous comment)).

qwytw 5y ago

You think you're mostly right. The one thing that bothers me is that you seem to be suggesting that because the current system is bad for most authors we should replace it a system that's bad for ALL authors (i.e. instead of introducing sensible limits or restricting the ability of corporate entities to hold copyright, or allowing authors to renegotiate their contracts based on the actual revenue earned you're basically suggesting removing it all together (the 20 year limit is simply infeasible due to the arguments from my previous comment)).