The part this analysis misses is that the author's "dream" of doing that full time is almost never realized -- 25% percent of authors identify as "full-time", but only 10% of those authors can actually make ends meet. Only 30% of books ever pay back the advance. The best shot is to be a "romance" author, which earns more than other genres, pretty much because sex sells. Copyright isn't doing a great job at its stated purpose, and yet we endure endless fights over it. The juice isn't worth the squeeze, and writers are mostly supporting themselves with other jobs anyway.
Copyright does not guarantee you an audience. Nothing guarantees you an audience, authors know this, everyone who creates anything ought to know this?
Copyright just says that if you DO manage to create a work that truly connects with an audience, you're in a position to make money off it because it cannot be stolen from you.
Novels aren't the only thing with copyright, and aren't really even the main thing that copyright protects. It also covers engineering reports, technical specs, journalism, blog posts, emails, internal memos, marketing copy, academic papers, user manuals, legal briefs, and a lot more.
Even in the particular case of novels, I would prefer to live in a world where some authors are making money than live in one with no novels at all.
I understand copyright covers lots of things. It doesn't do a good job with any of them, sadly.
> Even in the particular case of novels, I would prefer to live in a world where some authors are making money than live in one with no novels at all.
That's not the choice. Novels will be written regardless, and there are ways to make money that are not copyright-related: Substack and Patreon are doing more to fund small authors than the publishing industry as a whole, and people pay because they want to support the author, and to get early, exclusive access to the author's work. None of those authors are surviving and making money because someone can't copy their work and distribute it. Piracy is a fact, and that people give money to these authors in the presence of piracy shows that copyright is not necessary to support these artists.
> None of those authors are surviving and making money because someone can't copy their work and distribute it.
I tend to agree with your sentiment but this line made me think you’re underestimating the degree to which the law stops the powerful from doing evil. They see the law as a hassle to be calculated against and if there is no legal friction to stealing and using others’ creations they just will.
So it’s not that Amazon would take your novel, short story, etc and redistribute it. It’s that they’d make a whole series of movies or TV series using your creations and give you nothing and have to give you nothing.
Copyright being eliminated is among my more “idealistically anarchistic” wishes I think but so long as we’re in a society as legalistic and with such an imbalance of power generally, copyright protects more than it hurts I think.
Yes, I agree with this. I think your correct to point out that the leverage a legitimate corporation has to push ripped-off works far exceeds what the piracy community's ability to do so when it is infringement.
That said, I increasingly see writers making money directly from their audience not because the audience is not allowed to make a copy of their work, but because they treat the writers writing as a service and they want to get updates every week and so they subscribe. I think copyright was created for a less connected world where it was much more natural to print them in bulk and then sell copies.
> writers are mostly supporting themselves with other jobs anyway.
Skill issue. This is common for low-barrier careers that look like anyone can do them, but only a minority break-even. Others include porn/Onlyfans, social media "influencers",and hordes of aspiring actors who flock to Los Angeles.
