A comment was posted in response to my last posting, and the comment suggested that originally the copyright laws were designed to ensure that those who produce a piece of work, be it a book or a piece of music, would be paid for the resources they had to use in its production, ie, the paper, ink, and printing press; or the vinyl that had to be pressed with the grooves.  This idea suggests that now that the only thing necessary to deliver, say, my books to an audience, is the typing of pixels on a computer keyboard, that no money needs to change hands anymore.  I should be glad to write and have my stuff disseminated for free, since it cost me nothing to produce. 
     While I can kind of understand that viewpoint, what that person is forgetting is that it takes me TIME to write my books, and an even greater amount of time trying to connect with readers.  The writing is actually the easy and fun part for me.  Publicizing my works is much harder and more time-consuming.  And considering that I work 2 part-time jobs which are  only the beginning of the familial demands on my 24/7s, it is a wonder that I find any time at all to write!  I love to create new characters and new worlds.  But if I am essentially doing it for free, then I can no longer fool myself into thinking that I will someday be able to recoup even just some of the money I spend on publicity, by selling my books.  I'm already running a net loss, spending some of what I make in my 2 other jobs, to try to connect with readers. In that case, I'd be better off getting a third part-time job, and not writing anymore. 
     While that is not a choice I want to make, I'm at a loss as to how to explain my feelings to someone who sees my spinning of yarns as so easily-done that they feel I don't deserve to be paid for it.
     In times past, composers like Mozart, and writers, painters, etc. were all supported by wealthy patrons of the arts.  The patrons commissioned artwork they wanted to own, and anything produced by the artists was owned by the patrons.  Essentially this made the artists the property of, or slaves of their patrons.  But at least they were able to eat and pay their bills.  When asked why there were so few female artists, the obvious answer is always that they were taking care of the artists' children and home, while he was busy creating what his owner wanted, so that they could all eat.
     Now we are in a new age where males AND females must work.  While I am the first to admit that I love to write my books, and I love to hear about readers' opinions of them, if I have to admit that I will never make any profit from my writing, then I have to seriously ask myself if I should perhaps put it off until some time in the future, when all 4 of my progeny are out of college, and the bills are not quite so urgent.
     Now multiply that times the multitude of writers/musicians who are creating today.  Do we really want to diminish what is available, by taking for free from a creator, something they labored over, that gives us pleasure?  Or do we need to come up with a new paradigm that will still encourage creativity, but reward it in a different way?  Any suggestions?