But your model isn't right either. An author has to have a way to be compensation and depending on charity (of thieves no less) just isn't valid. The book has value or it doesn't. If it has no value then it shouldn't be created.
The unpleasant implication of slowpoke's "model" (and it's really just recycled Stallman nonsense) is that they'd really do it for the love of the art, and to hell with such ephemeral things as "eating".
Where did I ever mention any model of my own? Arguing against something does not imply my stance on anything else. You're committing a fallacy here.
Also, there are very few artists which can actually live of their art alone, WITH copyright. That wouldn't change much without it. It's how things always have been, despite what the content industry would like you to believe. Your petty appeal to emotion won't change it, either.
Finally, ignoring the fact that rms is a strawman in this context, if you'd ever read what he writes about selling software, you'd know that it does not really matter to him as long as the essential freedoms are preserved (beer vs freedom).
