Gutenberg9443@aol.com wrote:
Do I understand correctly that the fellow who works in the steel mill should be paid only what is necessary for the steel to be produced? And the waitress in a restaurant should be paid only enough for the orders to be taken and the food put on the table. Well, let's see, how much is the wear and tear on her shoe leather and her apron and the clothing she wars at the restaurant?
For cryin' out loud, YOU CANNOT HAVE LABOR OF ANY KIND, WHITE COLLAR OR BLUE COLLAR, WITHOUT PAYING THE LABORER. Karl Marx and Jesus Christ agree on this, though they disagree as to how it should be done.
Firstly, I'd like to take issue with your analogies here. Creative work is not just like a regular job. Steelworkers and Waitresses, with very few exceptions, would not make steel or wait on people if they weren't paid to do it. They do what they do because somebody is willing to pay them a price for which they are willing to give up their labour. I'd not argue that some people in creative industries do work for similar reasons as your steelworker and waitress above. However, I would argue that the vast majority of people create not because they make a living that way but because they enjoy the act of creation. Every day, I meet people who write books (even ones that I'd consider worth publishing) but never send off a copy to any publishers or agents. Every day, I meet people who write, perform and record music not because they're secretly hoping for a contract from the record industry but because they enjoy making music and they enjoy that they can give people a little entertainment.
Life plus 100, or life plus 70, or life plus 60, is absurd. Life plus 25 is not absurd. That's all I'm asking for. But too many people think I should get royalties for 10 years or 15 years and then no more, even when everybody else is still making money from the book.
This plumber you gave your hard-earned money to, how many years will you be sending royalty cheques to him? Even if authors, musicians, artists and programmers were given no money to create, there would still be a large amount of creation going on. The original idea behind copyright (take a look in the U.S. constitution) is not to ensure that creators get paid for the rest of their natural lives (or, for that matter, until long after they're dead). Its purpose is solely to increase the level of creation that goes on. However, that goal has been subverted. Copyright is no longer designed to reward artists for creation. It's designed solely to give lengthy monopolies to corporations. Cheers, Holden