[pp.int.general] Some parting thoughts

[Reinier Bakels]

>    You should acknowledge that artists often *initially* are poorly paid,
>    because they are supposed to get more money the more often people 
> listen to
>    (or read) their works.
>
> I think you've changed the subject.  The issue I am talking about is
> not how much some artist gets paid, or how much s/he ought to get
> paid.  I'm talking about the basic structure of the situation.
>
> I would like to support artists better, and I propose several ways to
> do it.  But that does not mean we owe them "compensation".  We must
> reject that idea.

I also talk about "ought". What model do you see then, given that writers 
are people of flesh and blood who need food, clothing and housing?
1. amateurs, earning money by some other means, and writing for free?
2. professionals who produce texts as a spin-off of their paid activities 
(e.g. university staff writing in professional magazines)
3. journalists etc. who write as their main occupation?
I don't think we can dispense of the last category. The model I would prefer 
is to pay them as employees. If they prefer to work on a freelance basis, 
pay them for each unit of text they produce (word, page, etc.). But do it 
*once*, commensurate with the effort, e.g. based on (an estimate of) the 
time actually spent in writing.

Yes, copyright based remuneration is bad. Then the writers depend on the 
actual number of copies sold. Perhaps that is good for a tangible goods 
business, but not for writers, who "produce" onlky once and can be copied 
infinitely afterwards. Writers should be independent. If sales are 
disappointing, they should not suffer, and if sales are high, they should 
not become outrageously rich - like BIll Gates.

One doesn't pay Joe the Plumber a very low advance, and then again again if 
more people go to the bathroom! But that does not mean that Joe the Plumber 
deserves a compensation for his effort!

reinier