I’m not sure it’s correct to assume that copyright is meant to incentivize those who have already created to keep creating. It’s just meant to incentivize creation. If that means that the “overpaid” creators cease producing, there is still everyone else working to achieve that “overpaid” state. So people are still incentivized even if the same one person does not remain incentivized. This doesn’t seem inconsistent with the theory of copyright.
“According to the professor, it’s simple. Overpaid artists don’t work harder; they work less.”
Beatings will continue until morale improves.
More like morale will remain high and productivity low until beatings begin.
interesting how many law professors with tenure think it’s grand for musicians and artists to work for tips.
I’m not sure it’s correct to assume that copyright is meant to incentivize those who have already created to keep creating. It’s just meant to incentivize creation. If that means that the “overpaid” creators cease producing, there is still everyone else working to achieve that “overpaid” state. So people are still incentivized even if the same one person does not remain incentivized. This doesn’t seem inconsistent with the theory of copyright.
Could the causality not be in the opposite direction, i.e. more music leading to lower profits, instead of the other way around?