Maybe get back to the original 20 years of copyright protection instead of the insane “70 years after death of the author” that has been made solely for the interest of the IP holders?

All my code (that isn't owned by a business, contractually) is free (well, technically I have a couple of private repos, but they're not paid access, they're just not available). So are all of the translation and commission work I did: people were paying to choose what I'd do next, not to keep something exclusive for themselves.

Corporatism is going to be the death of art, because we've normalized the idea that art is an ancillary function of some business project that first and foremost wants to generate profit.

they might suggest various other revenue models aside from royalties.

For instance, taking on production of art as a commission or pre-sale, releasing a book once a fundraising goal has been met, but not attempting to sue people for unauthorized copies after the fact

My code could effectively be free. The thing is most consumers don't care for code, they care for products. So I don't think open sourcing a currently closed source project would impact 99% of tech out there.

Eh idk but books should definitely be free. We can talk about the rest once the books are free.

So if authors refuse to spend the time and resources needed to get a work ready for publication because they will be denied any compensation for doing so; should they be forced to write them anyway so that you can have your free books?

What's the purpose of this question? Their answer is almost certainly "no", and that doesn't contradict anything they've said in this conversation.

Correct yes I totally want to make authors into literal slaves.

Fiendish; the most clever part is that authors who are already slaves to their own creative urges may not notice any change.

Let's say books are free like they should be. What about water? Housing? (Public) Transportation?

I’d probably argue a ubi but yeah in effect