That's ridiculous. Copyright exists becauce in the past bad actors misused the liberty of culture to exploit poor creators by selling their work without paying them anything at all. In the grand picture copyright is good, because it enables cretors to live from their work, and let's them invest into bigger pieces of culture of higher quality.
What we need is to ensure a balance between the commercial interessts and societies interesst.
Should we have a copyright system as it is today? Now that's a completely different question. And I don't think what they did helps at all in changing it for the better, at best they're just helping in testing and defining the limits of the current system.
Lets say I hire a plumber to fix my sink. Afterwards I refuse to pay because I have decided plumbing work should be free and plumbers should instead make their income by selling branded merchandise. This would just be breach of contract.
The plumber is not a psychopath by insisting on getting paid according the originally agreed contract. Maybe the plumber don't want to make income by selling branded merchandise but just want to get paid for plumbing. That is not for me to decide. I am free to look for a different plumber who will work for free.
Yes, they can. It's weird that you think that people can't demand that any aspect of any business change (or end) because they don't like it. That's basically an argument against law and democracy.
Your example is about someone entering a contract, accepting the fruits of that contract, then refusing to hold up their end of that contract. Completely unrelated.
For entertainment, I agree. But only insomuch as entertainers need to eat too.
For science, I disagree. Science benefits society most when everyone, even the poor, have access to it.
Sure, but should scientists work for free?
I think the premise of the question is flawed.
I think science should be free and scientists should be paid a liveable wage as any other person should be.
People can write stories all day long, even stories that will be read by nobody. Scientists can do science all day long even science that benefits nobody.
But writing stories all day long practices the art without worry about a paycheck. Scientists doing science practices the art without worry about a paycheck.
Both can be done with personal computers these days. Personal computers are extremely cheap to have and to maintain. There's nothing stopping it other than politics.
I just read it for free!!!
Sure they do, that's what libraries are for.
If you mean "viable" business-wise, that's a tautology. If you mean "viable" as in "writers feel compelled to write books", that's simply false. Writers write. Many writers like writing books, and would do so even if it didn't put a single cent in their pockets.
Writing books can be turned into a business, but it's not inherently a business.
Also, a book is not its physical form. An electronic book is no less of a book than a paper book.
Unless you are independently rich, you need an income to survive.
The falsehood here is "no writer will be insane enough to write without a business model".
Millions of fanfiction writers would like to have a word with you... Not to mention all the authors of comments on this very site, some of which are, at least, good enough to be paid articles somewhere, or in cooperation with other commenters could be turned (as whole threads) into short books in their own right.
Put another way: the music industry could entirely vanish overnight, and people would still sing in the shower and when drinking with their buddies.
Some people tend to express themselves in some way, and they would do it regardless of literally anything. We've achieved high literacy rates, which gave a tool of expression that is writing to a correspondingly high number of people. It's not exactly surprising that we now have a flourishing environment of Web novels and all kinds of written content outside of the "market" and publishing industry as a whole.
But it's not something specific to our times. Plenty of writers in history did starve do death. One of "the three greatest" poets of my country did precisely that: he wasn't published, he wasn't even read much, and when he was, he was ridiculed for it. Yet he had been writing anyway; then, he died in extreme poverty, leaving just a lot of paper behind. It took some 40 years IIRC for someone to "rediscover" the stash of hand-written poems, and now his works are being taught in highschools.
In yet other words: no, not everything has to be related to money. Many things are, yes, but not all. Writing as a profession that published (and paid) authors do is all fine and good, but it's just one side of writing, not its definition.
> Norwid led a tragic and often poverty-stricken life (once he had to live in a cemetery crypt). He experienced increasing health problems, unrequited love, harsh critical reviews, and increasing social isolation.
...and yet his works are easily (IMO) the best among the three of them (the two others would be Mickiewicz and Słowacki).
Getting paid is fine and dandy. What's false is that "without a business model", nobody would be "insane enough" to write books (or programs).
The conflation between doing a thing and getting paid for doing a thing -- or even worse, claiming that without monetary compensation said thing wouldn't exist -- is annoying and misleading.
The best software is usually already the one written by volunteers.
You mean written by people who are not professional software developers? I highly doubt that. Can you provide some examples?
I meant the best software is written without expectation of remuneration.
My impression was that most successful open source projects (Linux, Mozilla etc) are driven by paid contributors.
I'm sure you can find some examples, but depending on your opinion on what the "best software" is, I doubt most of it is developed by people working for free.
Being paid for writing is great. It's just that the paid writing is not all writing - some people write simply to be read, without needing or wanting to be paid for it.
Writing code is different, because it's a means of self-expression only in small part.
And you are using this as an argument why authors don't need income? Surely they didn't write anything after they starved, so it seem lack of income did affect the output.
Getting paid by publishers for writing books is a powerful motivator, but not the only one. In a world without a way to sell books, writers would still write.
I can agree with that. We have stuff like fan fiction which people write and share for free. I guess 50 Shades of Grey is the preeminent example of writing as a passion and as a calling rather than a professional skill.
There are authors whose main body of work was only published after their deaths and who are considered literary masters nonetheless, and not fanfiction writers.
All in all, I agree with a sibling comment: we must divorce the business of writing with the art of writing. They are related, of course, but the latter doesn't require the former. Once one understands this, one is less inclined to claim things such as "if writers don't get paid, books won't get written".
That is kind of the definition of professional though.
Writing, like any other skill, takes time and practice to master. If you can't dedicate yourself full time you will not reach your highest potential. And it requires some form of income to be able to dedicate yourself full time. Just like a professional pianist will be better than an amateur.
The second sentence here doesn't really follow from the first. I mean, assuming that only time and practice are needed for mastery, then practicing less-than-full-time only makes it correspondingly longer to reach mastery - it doesn't make it impossible, like you claim.
In reality, time and practice are not the only factors, though. You have to account for talent, which not only sets the upper bound on the quality of your writing, but also influences the rate of improvement with practice. It's not exactly unheard of for a debutant's work to be "way better than the latest work of established master X", isn't it? Talent is hard to capture and define, but it's a real thing, especially in the arts, although it also plays a part in trades and crafts (that's where the "10x programmers" and similar concepts come from...)
But you need an income to be able to write.
Yes, you need to be able to have a means of living in order to write. Selling your books is one such way, but not the only one. Lots of writers would still write without a business model.
That was my only point, really. It's false that one would have to be "insane" in order to write. We can argue about ifs and buts all day long, but that bit which I was replying to was hyperbolic and false.
"Painting. Sculpture. Composing. Singing. Acting. The playing of a musical instrument. Writing. Enough books have been written on these seven subjects alone to sink a fleet of luxury liners. And the only thing we seem to be able to agree upon about them is this: that those who practise these arts honestly would continue to practise them even if they were not paid for their efforts; even if their efforts were criticized or even reviled; even on pain of imprisonment or death."
He struck gold, of course, but note the sentiment he expressed. By his own admission, had he never been paid for it, he would have kept writing anyway, because that's what he does. And when he was starting he had other jobs -- and a family to support -- and really struggled with money, but kept going anyway.
Second, as has been mentioned to you in another comment, mastery is not directly related to having been paid for your art. There are acknowledged poets whose work was published posthumously. They didn't live off it.
(The quote was by Stephen King, by the way. Regardless of what you think about his literary skill, the man sure can speak about writing).
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2001/nov/24/arts.highe...
I don't think anyone suggested that. Society may be better off despite Glass never becoming a professional composer, though.
I meant that, while Glass not becoming a professional composer would have been bad by itself, it may be a reasonable loss compared to the advantages.
> Plenty of writers have been "insane enough" to write and publish without a business model for as long as written language has existed.
Only in the case of independently wealthy authors, which historically typically means nobility. Most non-wealthy authors have been depending on patronage, which means some other wealthy person decide what you write.
Copyright was revolutionary because it meant an author could exist without catering to rich or powerful patrons.
You're mistaking publishing for writing. You need money to publish, because publishing is selling decorated paper. Or rather, you did need money to publish. Now you don't, but instead we throw up artificial barriers in order to preserve the status quo.
Not only that. Plenty of struggling people write because they like writing. Writing is a calling which some people happen to be able to turn into a business.
But do note the post I was replying to. I wasn't arguing about copyright. I was arguing about the hyperbole of "no writer would be insane enough [...]" which is simply untrue. And it's untrue by a lot, not by a little.