"...great actors like Bogart is that they had a chemistry with the other actors and the audience, that's something that can't be replicated."
Get nostalgic much?
Chemistry with the audience? It's a movie. There's no studio audience. That's your way of saying "I liked it".
Chemistry with other actors? Overrated. That's why they call it acting. That's your way of saying "I liked them".
Defining great actors and acting is awfully subjective. Popular actors are routinely called great. The "critics" aren't much better-they routinely rave about actor x who upon closer inspection seems to have played the same character in every movie.
"Who single handedly invented, revolutionized and perfected 3D animation. This is the message I'm getting, what did he really do?"
He used the tech to create a movie that made a titanic amount of money. Even Hollywood accountants might have to acknowledge that this movie made a profit (or they will have to put in some extra hours at work). In any case, Cameron proved you can make money with the technology. And making money is the only thing that matters to the beancounters in Hollywood.
So, yes, Cameron has essentially single handedly invented, revolutionized and prefected 3D animation. It's a proven technology in Hollywood-someone without the clout of Cameron can now use it. If the movie had crashed and burned, nobody would have touched it with a ten foot pole.
"The point of human actors are that they're good at their job - acting (and marketing themselves, in some cases). They are not hired for their face or body as much as their acting ability."
Hmmm. Cruise, Schwarzenegger, etc.
Plenty of actors are hired for their face, body and/or name rather than their ability to act. Of course, when I mean the ability to act, I mean the ability to play more than one type of character. Plenty of "great" actors play the same character over and over again. I still enjoy their movies but I have no illusion about their ability.
"Did they really think they were going to get ~80% of the entire US population to get the swine flu vaccine? Somebody definitely got kickbacks."
Not unreasonable. That's very low for most things we vaccinate for. If the flu had been really nasty, the rate might be very high. There was also a question of how many doses (1 or 2) were going to be needed. So that 80% coverage might have been only 40%.
In any case, the vaccine may still get used. There will still be a need for it until it is incorporated into the seasonal flu vaccine.
Which only proves that doctors and science don't have to mix. Or as the old joke says, what do you call a medical student who graduates at the bottom of their class...
"But the vaccine itself has also been more aggressive, and normal safety checks and clinical studies were bypassed.."
"And many have been put under pressure to get vaccinated, even if we did not want to ("you don't get vaccinated for yourself, you get vaccinated to protect those around you..."). I am fortunate that I have been able to resist."
Vaccines are one of medicines greatest contributions to world health. The fact that you would refuse a safe vaccine and put patients at risk pretty much says it all.
"Another core issue is that we must manage risk objectively, and focus our resources (which are always limited) in the areas where are going to provide the best return, to the best of our knowledge at that point."
Which is why we vaccinate people. High reward for virtually no risk.
"Because of pressure from pharma lobbies,... precious health funds were squandered in a way that only benefited to the pharma industry."
Nice strawman. Pharma does not get rich on vaccines. If they did not receive subsidies they would probably stop producing them. It's the reason they haven't modernized production-it's not cost effective.
"i'd rather pay $20 a month and watch and listen to whatever i want when i want and where i want"
So would I. But that model does not exist. And the content providers don't want it to exist.
"today with my 10 mbps cable internet..."
And how much are you paying for that connection? And how much will you be allowed to download for that price? Not to mention that many people may never be able to get that connection speed.
The rental market already exists at $20 a month. It's called Netflix.
"They are/were in violation. Until someone reports them again they will continue their practices."
I'm always amazed that companies do this. I'm even more amazed when employees don't file complaints. It's one of the few areas of labor law that is taken seriously, has a real penalty (back pay over multiple years at multiple times the amount owed), and is easily proved.
A really devious bastard might let this go on for a number of years and file a complaint on the way out. Maximum damage, maximum back pay owed, and a better job.
"I inadvertently left out a big part of my point: most worker protections that used to be gained by union membership are now guaranteed by law. So why do I need a union?
I can get the same 401K plan as my boss... without having to go on strike to get it. I can get the same health insurance plan as my boss... without having to go on strike to get it. And so on. Because that's the law."
Excuse me? You are kidding, right? Please?
None of those things you mentioned are provided by law, at least in most of the US.
Most of those things you listed exist because of unions. Directly or indirectly. Or they exist because there is a limited supply of workers with a certain ability (often related to union activity or lobbying).
What is a business required to do in Washington state for instance: Pay minimum wage (currently the highest in the US at $8.55). Pay overtime for non exempt employees for hours worked over 40 hours in a week. Maintain a "safe" work environment. Maintain a work environment free from "discrimination". Rest break of 10 minutes every 4 hours. Meal break of 30 minutes if working over 5 hours. Pay taxes. Etc.
Not required: Sick leave, holidays, vacation, or time off of any kind. Benefits (Insurance, retirement, etc.)
"And I like it that way, because it's called "FREE MARKET"."
There is nothing free about the marketplace in practice. And the existence of unions does not prevent wage negotiation. Contracts negotiated by unions may. There is a difference.
"But in most cases, the reasons for the very existence of a union simply do not exist anymore."
I disagree. See above. Ultimately unions are corporations. Their purpose is to represent the interests of the workers (shareholders). They work about as well as regular corporations work. As long as you have corporations you will need the equivalent of unions.
"But they chose a reference that the average person just might get - seeing as Blade Runner is a fairly well-known movie."
So they might associate the phone with Harrison Ford and Blade Runner. I don't think Harrison Ford has a legal case. The general public doesn't know that it was based on a book by PKD; they remember it as a cool Harrison Ford movie.
Heck, they are more likely to associate it with Data from Star Trek. At least in that case, they MIGHT know who inspired the show.
"It's pretty obvious that the Google names were inspired by the book. Perhaps it's only that an engineer who read the book in the far distant past, pulled the name out of the blue, but it happened."
It's not obvious at all. For instance, it never crossed my mind that Android and nexus one referred to anything by PKD. At least before this lawsuit. And I have a science background, am aware of his books and have seen movies loosely based on his books. I doubt the marketing and legal department that approved the names had nearly that background. They would check the relevent databases, do focus groups, find no problems and proceed.
Now it occurs to me that I have been meaning to read his books for many years. But I will now have to buy them used so that his greedy estate won't get a cent.
"Not really, just because a large number of people are idiots, doesn't mean that privacy is outdated. "
I think privacy as we knew it is outdated due to our technology. We are essentially living in a small town where everybody knows all about everybody else. Except that most people think they are anonymous to those outside of their circle.
We had the luxury of having that privacy because it was difficult to have that level of knowledge about most people. That level of knowledge or lack of privacy tended to be limited to people living in small towns or people who came to the attention of large organizations/governments. Thanks to the wonders of technology it has come to the masses.
"With their intent to establsh Sharia law in the West, we had better start thinking about different solutions than just vigilance. Because it isn't working."
One minor problem. You essentially have described ALL radical religions. The religious right in the US rarely resorts to terrorism in the US because it has real political power.
"Of course, one "solution" would be to just accept the losses. The biggest problem would be convincing people's families not to sue, and I think that would be an insurmountable problem."
Coupled with a reasonable military/political response it's the only realistic way. You can't kill your way out of it (and leave the planet habitable). There are very few people who are both able to and want to seek us out and kill us. Otherwise this type of attack would be common.
We already have a compensation model that we developed for the 9/11 attacks. We seem to have become a nation of insecure people led by bold fools and cowards.
"The medical field learned from the therac-25 incident..."
That machines that use radiation can kill. They didn't however do much about it. Exposure to radiation in the medical field still can be highly variable:
In any case, if we want to detect explosives, then maybe we should actually use a machine that would detect explosives. Not a fancy imaging machine.
Having said that, the problem with the machines is that it is a technological solution to a non-technological problem. Flying is really safe. We could spend less money on air safety and not change that fact. Instead we want to spend more.
Other than nothing bad happened? Seriously. Despite what I would consider a total failure of the system, nothing of significance happened. On the other hand, you could consider the fact that a bomber had to use an unreliable method to detonate a minor amount of explosive to be a sign that our screening methods have made attacks far more difficult. You really think they don't have access to blasting caps and C-4?
The actual terrorist attack was successfully committed by those in the media, government and populace that blew the attack out of all proportion. It could be that the "masterminds" didn't expect it to be a success (or didn't care). If your goal is terror, a media feeding frenzy is much better than a long drawn out crash investigation. But it's a success either way.
"And when you go around mocking the people who died doing something stupid, often times you are too busy laughing to know the whole story."
And how would knowing the whole story make her actions any less stupid? Her actions led to her death. Mocking her actions is a good thing-it might encourage others not to do similar things.
I'd like to think I would never do anything as stupid as that but if I do, I fully expect to be mocked for it. Because I'd deserve it.
"We knew not all the minutes of all the cards would be used. We would estimate how much wouldn't be, and factor that into the cost of the program. If by some fluke, it was all used up, we would have lost money. Instead, we'd usually be close and it would keep the cost of the minutes down as well as give us (the service provider) and the company selling the cards a useful profit."
Or they could run a simple and useful promotion designed not to screw the customer over. One that would benefit everyone. I know that is a novel idea these days. Just saying.
"A business doesn't want to have thousands or tens of thousands of tiny outstanding debts floating around FOREVER."
They aren't debts. They are pieces of plastic or paper redeemable for stuff. Already paid for by yesterdays money that MIGHT someday be redeemed by another customer. A bankers dream. No wonder VISA and MASTERCARD have gift cards.
"That is the main reason there are "fees" to reduce the value of the card to zero when it isn't used."
Nope. It's so they get to earn interest AND keep the principal. Think of it as legalized stealing.
"Think of your own checks- would you like it if someone you wrote a check to sat on it for 5 years, then cashed it at a time when you least had the ability to pay for it?"
Nope. But perfectly legal. And it will happen if you don't stop payment on the check.
"I don't think it is unreasonable to have some type of expiration date or balance reduction time limit on gift cards, as long as it isn't too soon."
Most people disagree. I would agree on one condition. If it was in really big bold print on the card rather than buried in the fine print. But it never was.
If it had been clear, gift cards would never have been popular with those conditions. So it wasn't clear and as a result, many states prohibited the charges. What a surprise.
"And statists always forget that the easiest and fastest way to change a corporation is to stop giving it money, which is not possible with the government."
Utter crap. I can remake my state government easier than I can remake my utility provider. I can starve my state and counties of taxes via initiative (not a wise idea in my opinion but people are doing it). It's not possible with the utility (even if I disconnect from the utility, I am just trading one supplier for another). If you starve IBM, Intel or Walmart another corp will take their place and commit the same unpleasant acts.
If government sucks, it's because people want it to suck. People just don't want to take personal responsibility for it.
"I will pay $1 for a book, maybe $2 and that would be severely pushing it. I will not pay $5, $10, $25 for an E-Book. Sorry, but no. There is virtually no cost to distributing an E-Book. There is no paper, ink, shipping, storage, typesetting, etc... there is simply pressing a button to make a copy."
The bulk of the "cost" of the book is not in those things. It's the same model with music and movies. Bestsellers subsidize the failures. And they try to make a large profit.
Ultimately, you pay $25 for ebook for the same reason that you pay it for the hardback, for the convenience. You want it now. If you don't want it now, you are not their target demographic and thus do not matter to them.
Personally, I think you have a skewed sense of pricing between mediums. You equate a book to a music single. I would equate a book to an album or movie. A short story would be more equivalent to a single. In short, what you want is never going to realistically to happen. You can create a single in a day. You can't do that with a book. One has a greater production cost.
"Your statement that "most of the people" would do it event if there wasn't going to be a "big paycheck" misses the point unless you think a "big paycheck" is $80 to 100 grand a year. It's not."
For most people in most places that IS a big paycheck.
You assume that piracy is a threat to these people. That is not a valid assumption.
"You also don't account for the drop in production and quality that occurs when you have to spend 40 to 50 hours a week in your day job to make ends meet."
Then they probably weren't that good to begin with. Just because you are passionate or have fans doesn't mean you have marketable talent. Life kind of sucks that way. Hobbies are things you like to do that cost you money. Otherwise they would be your profession. On the other hand, maybe they have the passion and talent and just need to be seen and heard. Piracy might just be the ticket....
Slashdot Mirror
"...great actors like Bogart is that they had a chemistry with the other actors and the audience, that's something that can't be replicated."
Get nostalgic much?
Chemistry with the audience? It's a movie. There's no studio audience. That's your way of saying "I liked it".
Chemistry with other actors? Overrated. That's why they call it acting. That's your way of saying "I liked them".
Defining great actors and acting is awfully subjective. Popular actors are routinely called great. The "critics" aren't much better-they routinely rave about actor x who upon closer inspection seems to have played the same character in every movie.
"Who single handedly invented, revolutionized and perfected 3D animation. This is the message I'm getting, what did he really do?"
He used the tech to create a movie that made a titanic amount of money. Even Hollywood accountants might have to acknowledge that this movie made a profit (or they will have to put in some extra hours at work). In any case, Cameron proved you can make money with the technology. And making money is the only thing that matters to the beancounters in Hollywood.
So, yes, Cameron has essentially single handedly invented, revolutionized and prefected 3D animation. It's a proven technology in Hollywood-someone without the clout of Cameron can now use it. If the movie had crashed and burned, nobody would have touched it with a ten foot pole.
"The point of human actors are that they're good at their job - acting (and marketing themselves, in some cases). They are not hired for their face or body as much as their acting ability."
Hmmm. Cruise, Schwarzenegger, etc.
Plenty of actors are hired for their face, body and/or name rather than their ability to act. Of course, when I mean the ability to act, I mean the ability to play more than one type of character. Plenty of "great" actors play the same character over and over again. I still enjoy their movies but I have no illusion about their ability.
"Did they really think they were going to get ~80% of the entire US population to get the swine flu vaccine? Somebody definitely got kickbacks."
Not unreasonable. That's very low for most things we vaccinate for. If the flu had been really nasty, the rate might be very high. There was also a question of how many doses (1 or 2) were going to be needed. So that 80% coverage might have been only 40%.
In any case, the vaccine may still get used. There will still be a need for it until it is incorporated into the seasonal flu vaccine.
"I am a doctor,..."
Which only proves that doctors and science don't have to mix. Or as the old joke says, what do you call a medical student who graduates at the bottom of their class...
"But the vaccine itself has also been more aggressive, and normal safety checks and clinical studies were bypassed.."
Wrong. The side effects, or lack thereof, were also tracked very closely. http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=3029#more-3029
"Ok, the H1N1 strain might be a bit more aggressive."
Yes. Killing people with healthy immune systems would be considered "aggressive". About 1% of people who get H1N1 have to be hospitalized and 15 to 33% of those ended up in the ICU (when it's bad, it's bad). http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17753-dont-be-fooled-swine-flu-still-poses-a-deadly-threat.html It's not normal to have ICU's full of people from the flu.
"And many have been put under pressure to get vaccinated, even if we did not want to ("you don't get vaccinated for yourself, you get vaccinated to protect those around you..."). I am fortunate that I have been able to resist."
Vaccines are one of medicines greatest contributions to world health. The fact that you would refuse a safe vaccine and put patients at risk pretty much says it all.
"Another core issue is that we must manage risk objectively, and focus our resources (which are always limited) in the areas where are going to provide the best return, to the best of our knowledge at that point."
Which is why we vaccinate people. High reward for virtually no risk.
"Because of pressure from pharma lobbies, ... precious health funds were squandered in a way that only benefited to the pharma industry."
Nice strawman. Pharma does not get rich on vaccines. If they did not receive subsidies they would probably stop producing them. It's the reason they haven't modernized production-it's not cost effective.
"i'd rather pay $20 a month and watch and listen to whatever i want when i want and where i want"
So would I. But that model does not exist. And the content providers don't want it to exist.
"today with my 10 mbps cable internet..."
And how much are you paying for that connection? And how much will you be allowed to download for that price? Not to mention that many people may never be able to get that connection speed.
The rental market already exists at $20 a month. It's called Netflix.
"They are/were in violation. Until someone reports them again they will continue their practices."
I'm always amazed that companies do this. I'm even more amazed when employees don't file complaints. It's one of the few areas of labor law that is taken seriously, has a real penalty (back pay over multiple years at multiple times the amount owed), and is easily proved.
A really devious bastard might let this go on for a number of years and file a complaint on the way out. Maximum damage, maximum back pay owed, and a better job.
"I inadvertently left out a big part of my point: most worker protections that used to be gained by union membership are now guaranteed by law. So why do I need a union?
I can get the same 401K plan as my boss... without having to go on strike to get it. I can get the same health insurance plan as my boss... without having to go on strike to get it. And so on. Because that's the law."
Excuse me? You are kidding, right? Please?
None of those things you mentioned are provided by law, at least in most of the US.
Most of those things you listed exist because of unions. Directly or indirectly. Or they exist because there is a limited supply of workers with a certain ability (often related to union activity or lobbying).
What is a business required to do in Washington state for instance:
Pay minimum wage (currently the highest in the US at $8.55).
Pay overtime for non exempt employees for hours worked over 40 hours in a week.
Maintain a "safe" work environment.
Maintain a work environment free from "discrimination".
Rest break of 10 minutes every 4 hours.
Meal break of 30 minutes if working over 5 hours.
Pay taxes.
Etc.
Not required:
Sick leave, holidays, vacation, or time off of any kind.
Benefits (Insurance, retirement, etc.)
"And I like it that way, because it's called "FREE MARKET"."
There is nothing free about the marketplace in practice. And the existence of unions does not prevent wage negotiation. Contracts negotiated by unions may. There is a difference.
"But in most cases, the reasons for the very existence of a union simply do not exist anymore."
I disagree. See above. Ultimately unions are corporations. Their purpose is to represent the interests of the workers (shareholders). They work about as well as regular corporations work. As long as you have corporations you will need the equivalent of unions.
"But they chose a reference that the average person just might get - seeing as Blade Runner is a fairly well-known movie."
So they might associate the phone with Harrison Ford and Blade Runner. I don't think Harrison Ford has a legal case. The general public doesn't know that it was based on a book by PKD; they remember it as a cool Harrison Ford movie.
Heck, they are more likely to associate it with Data from Star Trek. At least in that case, they MIGHT know who inspired the show.
"It's pretty obvious that the Google names were inspired by the book. Perhaps it's only that an engineer who read the book in the far distant past, pulled the name out of the blue, but it happened."
It's not obvious at all. For instance, it never crossed my mind that Android and nexus one referred to anything by PKD. At least before this lawsuit. And I have a science background, am aware of his books and have seen movies loosely based on his books. I doubt the marketing and legal department that approved the names had nearly that background. They would check the relevent databases, do focus groups, find no problems and proceed.
Now it occurs to me that I have been meaning to read his books for many years. But I will now have to buy them used so that his greedy estate won't get a cent.
"I'm not sure that's relevant. Part of the reason I work is to try to make sure my kids are reasonably well set-up in life."
You're not sure that's relevent? WTF!?! I think it's pretty clear what the purpose of copyright was.
If you are concerned about the finances of your dependents there is this thing call insurance. It is part of a larger field of financial planning.
"Not really, just because a large number of people are idiots, doesn't mean that privacy is outdated. "
I think privacy as we knew it is outdated due to our technology. We are essentially living in a small town where everybody knows all about everybody else. Except that most people think they are anonymous to those outside of their circle.
"Is our view of privacy outdated?"
Probably.
We had the luxury of having that privacy because it was difficult to have that level of knowledge about most people. That level of knowledge or lack of privacy tended to be limited to people living in small towns or people who came to the attention of large organizations/governments. Thanks to the wonders of technology it has come to the masses.
Unless the UK has invented/discovered telepathy, they still cannot FORCE you to divulge the key against your will.
Although in the real world, I would agree prison time and violence work pretty well most of the time .
"With their intent to establsh Sharia law in the West, we had better start thinking about different solutions than just vigilance. Because it isn't working."
One minor problem. You essentially have described ALL radical religions. The religious right in the US rarely resorts to terrorism in the US because it has real political power.
"Of course, one "solution" would be to just accept the losses. The biggest problem would be convincing people's families not to sue, and I think that would be an insurmountable problem."
Coupled with a reasonable military/political response it's the only realistic way. You can't kill your way out of it (and leave the planet habitable). There are very few people who are both able to and want to seek us out and kill us. Otherwise this type of attack would be common.
We already have a compensation model that we developed for the 9/11 attacks. We seem to have become a nation of insecure people led by bold fools and cowards.
"The medical field learned from the therac-25 incident..."
That machines that use radiation can kill. They didn't however do much about it. Exposure to radiation in the medical field still can be highly variable:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=3154#more-3154
In any case, if we want to detect explosives, then maybe we should actually use a machine that would detect explosives. Not a fancy imaging machine.
Having said that, the problem with the machines is that it is a technological solution to a non-technological problem. Flying is really safe. We could spend less money on air safety and not change that fact. Instead we want to spend more.
"WTF????? Just WHAT about the system worked?"
Other than nothing bad happened? Seriously. Despite what I would consider a total failure of the system, nothing of significance happened. On the other hand, you could consider the fact that a bomber had to use an unreliable method to detonate a minor amount of explosive to be a sign that our screening methods have made attacks far more difficult. You really think they don't have access to blasting caps and C-4?
The actual terrorist attack was successfully committed by those in the media, government and populace that blew the attack out of all proportion. It could be that the "masterminds" didn't expect it to be a success (or didn't care). If your goal is terror, a media feeding frenzy is much better than a long drawn out crash investigation. But it's a success either way.
"And when you go around mocking the people who died doing something stupid, often times you are too busy laughing to know the whole story."
And how would knowing the whole story make her actions any less stupid? Her actions led to her death. Mocking her actions is a good thing-it might encourage others not to do similar things.
I'd like to think I would never do anything as stupid as that but if I do, I fully expect to be mocked for it. Because I'd deserve it.
"We're all just one failed experiment or innocent mistake away from being on the Darwin Awards list."
Not really. Garden variety stupidity is not supposed to be eligible (killing oneself with a loaded weapon, for instance).
But a drunk driver who drowns after jumping into a flooded creek trying to save their moped. That is a much higher WTF.
"...you won't win a Darwin award in your life but rather just off the far end of it."
Not true. If you lose the ability to procreate before(?) having done so and live you are eligible.
But you are required to do it in an unusual way. Methods that become common are retired from eligibility.
"We knew not all the minutes of all the cards would be used. We would estimate how much wouldn't be, and factor that into the cost of the program. If by some fluke, it was all used up, we would have lost money. Instead, we'd usually be close and it would keep the cost of the minutes down as well as give us (the service provider) and the company selling the cards a useful profit."
Or they could run a simple and useful promotion designed not to screw the customer over. One that would benefit everyone. I know that is a novel idea these days. Just saying.
"A business doesn't want to have thousands or tens of thousands of tiny outstanding debts floating around FOREVER."
They aren't debts. They are pieces of plastic or paper redeemable for stuff. Already paid for by yesterdays money that MIGHT someday be redeemed by another customer. A bankers dream. No wonder VISA and MASTERCARD have gift cards.
"That is the main reason there are "fees" to reduce the value of the card to zero when it isn't used."
Nope. It's so they get to earn interest AND keep the principal. Think of it as legalized stealing.
"Think of your own checks- would you like it if someone you wrote a check to sat on it for 5 years, then cashed it at a time when you least had the ability to pay for it?"
Nope. But perfectly legal. And it will happen if you don't stop payment on the check.
"I don't think it is unreasonable to have some type of expiration date or balance reduction time limit on gift cards, as long as it isn't too soon."
Most people disagree. I would agree on one condition. If it was in really big bold print on the card rather than buried in the fine print. But it never was.
If it had been clear, gift cards would never have been popular with those conditions. So it wasn't clear and as a result, many states prohibited the charges. What a surprise.
"And statists always forget that the easiest and fastest way to change a corporation is to stop giving it money, which is not possible with the government."
Utter crap. I can remake my state government easier than I can remake my utility provider. I can starve my state and counties of taxes via initiative (not a wise idea in my opinion but people are doing it). It's not possible with the utility (even if I disconnect from the utility, I am just trading one supplier for another). If you starve IBM, Intel or Walmart another corp will take their place and commit the same unpleasant acts.
If government sucks, it's because people want it to suck. People just don't want to take personal responsibility for it.
"I will pay $1 for a book, maybe $2 and that would be severely pushing it. I will not pay $5, $10, $25 for an E-Book. Sorry, but no. There is virtually no cost to distributing an E-Book. There is no paper, ink, shipping, storage, typesetting, etc... there is simply pressing a button to make a copy."
The bulk of the "cost" of the book is not in those things. It's the same model with music and movies. Bestsellers subsidize the failures. And they try to make a large profit.
Ultimately, you pay $25 for ebook for the same reason that you pay it for the hardback, for the convenience. You want it now. If you don't want it now, you are not their target demographic and thus do not matter to them.
Personally, I think you have a skewed sense of pricing between mediums. You equate a book to a music single. I would equate a book to an album or movie. A short story would be more equivalent to a single. In short, what you want is never going to realistically to happen. You can create a single in a day. You can't do that with a book. One has a greater production cost.
"Your statement that "most of the people" would do it event if there wasn't going to be a "big paycheck" misses the point unless you think a "big paycheck" is $80 to 100 grand a year. It's not."
For most people in most places that IS a big paycheck.
You assume that piracy is a threat to these people. That is not a valid assumption.
"You also don't account for the drop in production and quality that occurs when you have to spend 40 to 50 hours a week in your day job to make ends meet."
Then they probably weren't that good to begin with. Just because you are passionate or have fans doesn't mean you have marketable talent. Life kind of sucks that way. Hobbies are things you like to do that cost you money. Otherwise they would be your profession. On the other hand, maybe they have the passion and talent and just need to be seen and heard. Piracy might just be the ticket....