This is not trolling or baiting (nor even intended to be). This is advocating for efforts, very public and visible, against broken public policy. Authors can still make a living without draconian copyright policy (life of the author + 70 years?) and suing libraries (!!!) for making content available during a pandemic.
> Just because it can be infinitely duplicated and shared ‘freely’ does not mean it is sustainable to do so. If there is no money in art, less art will be made and most agree that this is not desirable.
I don't believe the evidence shows this (but is a topic for another thread, "why do people create?"). People who create to create will still do so (IMHO, based on the history of humans), even if it is what it is for many people: a hobby funded by other work, the state, or private patrons through means other than controlled access to content.
It is not authors doing the suing here. It is the big four publishers. All the demonising of authors over this has gotten out of hand and should just stop.
That said, please explain[] just how* an author "can still make a living" without some form of copy-protection. And please refrain from the "signing tours", "selling merch", "live readings" nonsense. Writers in particular (but the visual arts, too) simply don't, on the whole, have the skills, inclination or desire to engage in much of that. The entire reason for engaging with the conventional publishing industry is to relieve an author of the tedious burden of sourcing artwork, arranging print and distribution, marketing and sales, leaving them free to write more stories -- what they do best. Self-pub can work for some writers, but they're the ones willing to sacrifice precious writing-time time on all those peripheral activities.
Bear in mind that the overwhelming majority of writers are writing in snatched hours in the early mornings/evening, over and above a "day job" to pay the rent and put food on the table. There's not a lot of time left over in a day to also become an editor/marketer/project manager.
eta [*]: and I genuinely mean: Just HOW should public policy look in order to provide some form of artistic protection for creators? It's easy to sit around and say "copyright is broken" (and I'd largely agree!) It's less easy to say what it might/ought become.
That said, please explain[] just how an author "can still make a living" without some form of copy-protection.
See: the entire history of books before computers.
See: Doctorow's Little Brother, which was distributed freely and still sold so well it went on the NYT's best seller list.
eta []: and I genuinely mean: Just HOW should public policy look in order to provide some form of artistic protection for creators? It's easy to sit around and say "copyright is broken" (and I'd largely agree!) It's less easy to say what it might/ought become.
The law shouldn't guarantee you a business model under actual capitalism or better systems. "We're going to enforce with a military your right to a business model" is an inherently silly proposal. It makes more sense to guarantee everyone has enough to live off of, which is something the state is already capable of, and something the best capitalist and socialist economists are advocates of.
Beyond that, if you're looking for a less-radical proposal: shorten the copyright period. The NEL didn't have anything that was five years old or younger on it. Current copyright terms are insane and against the common good in every sense of the word.
There are many artists that make some money off of donations e.g. via Patreon, without enforcing any kind of copyright on their work. Authors don't really make all that much money unless they're very successful. I doubt that most of them do it for the money alone.
> Just because it can be infinitely duplicated and shared ‘freely’ does not mean it is sustainable to do so. If there is no money in art, less art will be made and most agree that this is not desirable.
I don't believe the evidence shows this (but is a topic for another thread, "why do people create?"). People who create to create will still do so (IMHO, based on the history of humans), even if it is what it is for many people: a hobby funded by other work, the state, or private patrons through means other than controlled access to content.