Earlier quoted context omitted.
> (or, more practically, that authors continue to author books instead of deciding to go work at a tech company or something) Have you done or read research to suggest this is something to worry about? There are other concerns certainly. But I have trouble understanding how someone who has ever visited Wikipedia or visited github could even ask this question. It sure sounds like a conceptual anachronism to me. (Thoug…
I think if you talked to most authors and asked "would you still do this if it were unpaid" you'd get almost entirely "no"s. Do you expect otherwise?
The question isn’t whether they’d work for free, it’s whether they’d work if it was impossible to generate revenue through enforceable copyrights. We know that even under these conditions, some authors would work for free, others would be paid by companies that benefit from their work other than through the sale of licensed copies, and still others would be paid by patrons and governments. It’s impossible to say whether the loss of all new works that don’t fall into these categories would outweigh the gain of all existing creative works becoming available for unlimited free use, but we can be pretty confident that there would still be more new creative works (perhaps of lower average quality) than any person could consume in a lifetime.