Some people, most of them probably solidarity readers, authors find that deserve to be compensated for their work. In general, said this in reference to concrete, made public works, but even then the verdict is too broad. This myth is the most dangerous of all, because he sounds so very reasonable.He also seems much like a declaration of copyright which often is given, namely that that right exists to give authors a chance to earn money with the distribution of their works. The difference is extremely important: in the first statement gets an author money anyway, regardless of the amount of work in a job he stops and regardless of the quality of the work. The BKR variant of the copyright, so to speak. Only one work is already spend enough.
Nowhere on this planet there is someone who believes that labour law automatically gives overtime pay. Would that were the case, I would immediately begin tomorrow with unsolicited consultancyklussen against the high-rate, which speaks. Outside the sprookjesbos of copyright everyone understands that there must be an agreement between employee and employer (or supplier and client). The reward is a result of that agreement. [source]
Other readers believe that they have the right to share files, because they believe that authors already rich enough. I suspect that this belief ironically is the result of the whole mythology is that by proponents of a tougher copyright law was woven around that. If there is the spectre of the poor, starving artist (see, for example, observations of one Charlie McCreevy, the European Commission on the imminent renewal of certain related rights).
Readers are not stupid: it marks how much money there is in publishing deals. And since the McCreevy’s out of this world continue to insist that the money in that world handles a fair reward for authors, the reader can hardly conclude otherwise than that there is a continuous stream wheelbarrows with gold on its way to the authors. Nobody would like to have a auteursrechtensysteem mainly publishers what benefits, so the proponents of a tougher copyright (publishers) continue to pretend there mountains of money to authors.
The practice is obviously a little different. If an author receives more than ten percent of the retail price of his works, his publisher failed to have the feeling. This also applies to works that are distributed electronically, even though the costs (50% in the case of “analog” dissemination) virtually nil. It is also not uncommon an author simply not willing to pay for new distribution methods.
Finally, there are also readers who believe that good works are suppressed in favor of mediocre work. This myth is so persistent, because there is a core of truth in it. So popular rock bands disproportionately much money radioheffingen in the U.S. and the EU. The calculation of the distribution has to do this, and also the fact that smaller acts often do not know where the rack. [source]
An interesting example: the annual budget of the Science Fiction Writers of America is largely derived from Swedish bibliotheekheffingen, which the organization for its members Intl. There are many countries where borrowers pay such taxes, and it is likely that not every author gets his share, especially if that author are abroad. [source]
But just as true that authors get little money, simply because the vast majority of authors are not very good at their job. A proof of the absurd: the slushpile. A term in the publishing industry which refers to the huge pile of manuscripts in which a publisher must Waden each year through to the few rough diamonds to find that he is spending. Most authors are just as popular as they deserve.
These are some new myths that float around the copyright. If we learn to recognize them, we can prevent them from policy and law at the base.
Branko Collin is a volunteer of Project Gutenberg, the digital library of books (for the most part) to the public domain are returned. Like the founder of the project, Michael Hart, he finds it much less of the copyright know then should, and a lot more than he wants. Ten years ago Branko took the document “10 Big Myths about copyright explained” by Brad Templeton brilliant, now obsolete.

Segnala presso: