[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by Format C:

Please, don't always think that copyright = payment.

Naturally, there is no way to be sure that a book will be profitable. That being said, copyright does protect an author's financial interests should the work actually be published and be successful (Obviously though, it will require a decent contract with the publisher). Likewise, it protects the interests of the publisher who spent a lot of time and money getting the author's manuscript ready for print.

And don't think that copyrighted work are the only works published. If you don't believe me, just go in a book store and browse for Shakespeare.

How about we go into the book store and browse for some of the more obscure 19th century authors? Authors like Shakespeare, Mark Twain, Jane Austin, etc. are safe bets for publishers. They aren't going to hit it out of the park with sales, but in general, the various publishers know that they can probably sell X thousand copies a year. Unknown authors have an unkown sales potential. There is a lot of financial risk in publishing an unknown author (or in many cases, even a known author if he has not truly hit the big time). Copyright ensures that the publisher that is willing to take the risk has a fair chance to get rewarded for that risk (Note, I do agree that current copyright terms are too generous... but I do believe copyright itself is necessary).

I'm not telling the author should not be paid, nor that the publisher should not profit from his work.
Monopoly is not at all the only way to profit.

It may not be the only economic model, but up to now, it has been an incredibly successful model.

And, again, you can't damage billions of readers for the advantage of a couple of 80 years old writers who write bad books (good books will always be profitable, copyright or not).

Somehow, I think you don't really understand how the world works. Once a work goes out of copyright, there is no reason for any publishers to pay the author for the use of the author's work. Therefore, the author whose life is nearly over very likely incentive to create a new work. Even if the book is a masterpiece, he or his heirs will have no chance to profit from it. Likewise, why should the publisher take a chance on publishing it if the moment they publish it, other publishers simply copy their edition and start selling it for themselves (This is even more of a risk with ebooks).

And I don't think that extended copyright is an incentive to authors, too.
If I wrote a Da Potter Code which stays on the best seller list for decades, and it'll be always making money for me and my children, even from movie director's work, why should I work one day more in my life? I wouldn't even write the address on the postcards I send from the Caribbeans!!!!!!!!!!!

Unless I'm particularly greedy, of course...

Sure, there is the danger of too much success being a disincentive to write (or at least to publish). However, human nature, being what it is, pretty much suggests that most people will continue to write more books. Tom Clancy, Stephen King, Michael Crichten, Dan Brown and others have continues to write and publish long after their writing made them rich. On the flip side, there are many mid-list authors whose continued royalties provide just enough income to tide them over between books.

--
Bill