Functions of a Government

[Elwher]

And how many authors would be writing new material if any yahoo can just copy their works and sell them at a discount? If I put my time into writing something, be it a play, novel, history, or whatever, I am entitled to whatever revenue it may generate.

1. Words and ideas aren't something you can hold in your hands. Therefore, no one should be able to claim ownership or make money off them. All literature and knowledge should be in the public domain, not locked up behind paywalls.

2. The current system strongly favors entrenched corporate interests as opposed to individual authors, artists, and inventors.

3. Besides stifling free speech, copyright is a form of government-enforced monopoly and therefore a violation of economic freedom. Rather than innovate and build better products, rightsholders are incentivized to sit on their IP and prevent competitors from making improvements.

4. I'm not just opposed to monopolies but regulatory laws in general; I believe that government has no business protecting people from themselves or each other, e.g. police, food inspection, building codes, mandatory seatbelt laws. Copyright just happens to be one of them.

You still have not responded to the root of my question. How many writers, painters, etc would create new content if they could not ensure that they would receive the revenue it generates? I suspect that very few are in it just to see their works published or displayed.

[Worldly Philosophers]

1. Words and ideas aren't something you can hold in your hands. Therefore, no one should be able to claim ownership or make money off them. All literature and knowledge should be in the public domain, not locked up behind paywalls.

2. The current system strongly favors entrenched corporate interests as opposed to individual authors, artists, and inventors.

3. Besides stifling free speech, copyright is a form of government-enforced monopoly and therefore a violation of economic freedom. Rather than innovate and build better products, rightsholders are incentivized to sit on their IP and prevent competitors from making improvements.

4. I'm not just opposed to monopolies but regulatory laws in general; I believe that government has no business protecting people from themselves or each other, e.g. police, food inspection, building codes, mandatory seatbelt laws. Copyright just happens to be one of them.

You still have not responded to the root of my question. How many writers, painters, etc would create new content if they could not ensure that they would receive the revenue it generates? I suspect that very few are in it just to see their works published or displayed.

If you're generating art in the United States in 2022 because you want to make money off it, I know where you can get a good pair of gloves to roll that Sisyphean boulder of yours.

The percentage of people who live their lives as career artists is vanishingly tiny. The vast majority of us do it because it helps keep us sane, not because we expect to hit it big

[Kalivyah]

- "This is my thing. I created it and I do not wish for other people to make money off of my product or pass it off as my own."
- "Uhm... Actually."

[Concejos Unidos]

You still have not responded to the root of my question. How many writers, painters, etc would create new content if they could not ensure that they would receive the revenue it generates? I suspect that very few are in it just to see their works published or displayed.

At this point, the primary point of intellectual property is to allow big business to crush anyone using IP the business itself didn't create and is holding onto well after the death of the original creator, monetizing things like goddamn academic research, enable patent trolls, jack up drug prices etc. At the very least, it's clear that the vast majority of IP law no longer serves the purpose of defending creators and encouraging creativity.