[petrucci]

Originally Posted by MrsJoseph

Even if the books that are currently in copyright never go out of copyright...older books would still be competition for new books. So how does that help this poor hack authors you are so concerned about?

It helps them, as there would not be more competition from other works going out of copyright.

Originally Posted by MrsJoseph

Also, what do you expect now? No one should have access to free reading materials? What kind of illiterate world do you want this to be? That will be a great way to make sure the poor and disadvantaged never have the opportunity to learn.

In many countries the education of the poor is subsidised. The poor will not go without books. It is my belief that eliminating writing as a profession will reduce the level of literacy.

Originally Posted by MrsJoseph

Stop making excuses for inadequacy. There is no such thing as a "level playing field" that isn't falsely created in order to give the appearance of such. People like what they like. And if they prefer Austen to new hack writer...then they will read Austen even if they have to go on the black market to do so.

I have never been arguing for censorship. You are proposing a capitalist approach in which readers choose the books they want to read. I simply want to ensure that such an approach is not biased by differences in cost that are subsidised by various interests.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Not all compensation is monetary. Some authors are happy to get recognition. Fanfic takes time and effort to write, and nobody's insisting those authors should get paid. Many of those works are so obviously transformative there'd be no question of valid commercial use, especially the ones based on public domain works.

Are you saying that fanfic authors who write alternative endings to Pride and Prejudice or modernized Red Riding Hood stories, should sell them?

Yes I am.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Why should an author have to charge readers if they've got enough money to not need that? If they're unemployed and retired, or supported by their family, why are they morally obligated to make strangers pay them money they don't need, to cut down on the amount and quality of free works available for people who don't have money?

The reason is that failure to charge money for literary works devalues writing as a profession. Take a look at the newspaper industry. With news freely available on the internet, the quality of writing in news stories in print and online has gone down. Making the content freely available has essentially eliminated the job of reporter and has led to worse news reporting.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

I really don't get your arguments. How is society better off if quality books are kept from the poor, and authors are forbidden to share their art on their own terms?

I think that society will benefit from great new works being written. I do not think as many such works will be produced if it is not economical to write a book. An author needs to cut her teeth on some early works. Even big successes sometimes take years to come to fruition. The Harry Potter series took many years to achieve its prominence.

Only someone who is very poor cannot afford a 6 dollar paperback. Those who cannot afford such a work, can access books from public libraries.