>>7694

I think we can end the discussion

You are basically admitting yourself that only large megacorporation have the might to enforce protectionist copyright laws that they lobbied for in the first place, while small artists, who copyright was supposedly made to protect, don't benefit from it in the digital age.

Copyright is an arbitrary, unnatural right with no valid justification, except to create major content monopolists and to protect them.

You do not need copyright to "sell your work" as an artist. You only need copyright if you wanna make a work once, and then sell it twice. Or three times. Or three million times (if its that popular) and get paid every time again and again.

If I am a baker, I can't make a bun, and then sell it twice to two different customers. Attempting to do so would be fraud, since there is only one. Is a bakers or carpenters or masons work worth less than that of a digital content creator, because he can sell his work only once unless he builds a machine for mass production?

If you want your work to stay as unique, then paint on canvas and auction of the original. But don't argue for automatically owning every possible digital copy ever made, just because you made the first one. There's simply no justification for that.

Making the first one is hard, copying them is easy. Therefore its fair enough to charge a client or the community as a whole (patreon, etc...) for new work. But once its made, its paid. And if it isn't, you are free to either keep it secret to yourself until you got something from someone, or you just set it free anyway as an investment/advertisement. I see nothing wrong with that business model, since its simply how everyone else on the planet works.

There is simply no reason to privilege some creative workers over everyone else. Especially not if the privilege in question doesn't even work and ends up serving only large companies, who fuck over the artist just as much as everyone else.