Quote:
Originally Posted by Format C: View Post
If you're not good enough to make money in 28 years, why should you be granted by law to try longer?
|
It bears mentioning too that "good enough" may not be the issue--it could be what is "popular." Anne Rice (like her or hate her) is enjoying a resurgence of popularity with her books because vamps came back into style.
And the reason you should be granted by law to try longer is part economics and part the fact that you're still alive:
Twenty-eight years does not cover retirement years--I probably won't be mentally competent to write new novels when I'm 80...or even younger. But what if those Dragons suddenly become popular when I'm 80? Seems like it would be a lot nicer for everyone involved if the government wasn't picking up the tab for my existence at 80 in a nursing home. Maybe that book will be making enough change to provide me a few bibs.
Some careers make money at the front end. Some the back end, some never. I work very, very hard at writing. I may or may not be good at it--BUT if people are still buying the book, I think I should have the right to use that money whether I'm 80 or 90 or whatever. Whether it's 28 days or 28 years from the creation of said work. The fact is, at 80, I probably need the money more than the public needs it free.
Let's look at basketball and their outrageous salaries. Shouldn't they have to do broadcasting and commercials for free after they retire? After all, they're just living off their past glory. Why shouldn't they be forced to just work for the public good? They made their millions. They should go and work for a charity rather than rely on their good looks and expertise to keep bilking the deserving public of their expertise...right??? It's not fair that they keep making money just because they were once popular.