None of whom got their money from exorting readers of their books.
What you have there is a argument for basic income, not a argument for copyright.
History is filled with many authors who died young and penniless because they could not survive on their writing during their lifetimes. And that's exactly the system you're arguing for.
> And [authors dying young and penniless]'s exactly the system you're arguing for.
Bullshit. Your system is the one that produces that (see also fanfiction authors, who I'm sure aren't true Scotsmen to you). As I said:
> > What you have there is a argument for basic income, not a argument for copyright.
My system is the system that has enabled hundreds of thousands of artists and other creators to survive on their own without needing publishers or other entities to sell their work for them and pay them a pittance.
Basic income is a separate discussion. It would mean that artists wouldn't die, but it would also mean that corporations would get to exploit artists worse than they ever have before.
You really need to think of the consequences of your suggestions before you suggest altering other people's livelihoods for your own momentary convenience.
I disagree about the "less books, more quality" argument. Today, we have more books, more quality. Sure, there are lots of bad books today, but the volume of high-quality works today so far exceeds the volume of any books (good or bad) produced during the patronage era that it's like comparing a nuclear bomb to a match.