Cheerskep, regarding what you call a "dismaying non-sequitur": We can agree that there is no causal connection between copyrights and "who knows how many children who died under the age of ten".
But -- as you have been asserting, copyrights are a necessary condition for a writer to make money. So we can then ask how much more a writer might have accomplished if copyrights had not enabled money making to be a (distracting) possibility. The connection between art and money is fascinating because people have such strong and often contradictory opinions about it. On the one hand, someone, like William, will self-righteously decry the crass monetization of the art market -- and then, turn around, and rather whimsically,copyright everything he says online, in the hopes, one assumes, of cashing in at some later date. In bourgeois society, money establishes status. So there is something shameful about not making it, and something unquestionably distinctive about a high income, regardless of how it was made. But, I think we need to move beyond that, and attach distinction to quality. In India, the word for that would be "dharma". Good art/music/literature is the appropriate contribution of the artist/musician/writer, Whether the artist dies very rich (Andrew Lloyd Webber) or penniless (Mozart). (and think of what Webber could have written if he hadn't been so dedicated to making cheesy hit musicals) ____________________________________________________________ Click to learn about options trading and get the latest information. http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/BLSrjnxUZ1nCesoa4hOn7Va4OUZJTY U8xoXlxLySV2wLZBRXb4FotEleEDW/
