10 ms·
I don't think one has to go this far. It's already a hard job being an author, and if you make it less well-paid for the median author, we'd get less art, and l
by theptip 4y ago
I don't think one has to go this far. It's already a hard job being an author, and if you make it less well-paid for the median author, we'd get less art, and less knowledge shared. However I think one could easily make a case for making it less well-paid for the big winners head of the power-law curve (the Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, Mickey Mouse, Star Wars, etc) which extract huge paychecks from the copyright monopoly.
I think it's fine to give authors a temporary monopoly of say ten or twenty years, to reward production. The problem is when the modern special-interest-driven capitalist system hooks into this and keeps lobbying to increase the length of copyright, benefitting estates and conglomerates, rather than the initial authors doing the creative work. And the public pays the cost.
- rfrey 4y agoI would be shocked if the median pay for an author was more than $2/hour. I'd actually be shocked if it was that much. Not sure what effect lowering it to $1.50/h would be.
- joak 4y agoMost authors never make a dime. Most authors never get published. Most authors have no readers. Still they write. I think the point is to pay successful writers so they keep writing. Pay them and distribute ebooks for free. Where is the contradiction? The money just have to come from other sources than selling the books. Free ebooks mean more readers. This is something desirable, no?