The "One-Hit-Wonder" Rule of Copyright Compensation

From a podcast listener named Ed Morgan, in response to our recent episode called "Who Owns the Words That Come Out of Your Mouth?":

While listening to your podcast on British copyright laws I was thinking you missed an important point. If you want to keep content providers producing, you can’t pay them too much. It’s what I call the “one-hit-wonder” rule. If a single piece of copyrighted work is so popular that fair compensation to the creator eliminates the incentive for the copyright owner to ever produce anything else. The same could apply to the creator’s heirs. Would Churchill’s descendants produce new and more content if they were not getting paid for the work their ancestor did?

I think Ed's observation is more relevant for the heirs than the creator him/herself. Thoughts?

Churchill Style

I have a friend named Barry Singer, an author who also runs a bookshop that specializes in Churchillania.

He has now combined all these passions to write a book called Churchill Style: The Art of Being Winston Churchill. It seems at first glance to be mainly a guide to what Churchill ate, drank, smoked, and wore but it truly is a phenomenal book in that it also brings us deeply into how Churchill thought, struggled, and persevered in his personal and political lives.