Copyright Abolition Debate

Why can't we create copyright abolition proposal to do the same the other way?

Copyright laws are red flag laws for publishers.It has nothing to do with creators.People are regularly paying creators directly to create through patreon, super chats, advertising, early access, subscriptions, etc.The idea that you need copyright to protect you is just not based in reality.Get rid of copyright, creators will find a way to monetize it if they want to make a living doing it.It's not society's job to protect your ability to get paid for your hobby. There a

Probably not, no.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_copyright

Why? Because you don't like it?It's all perverted now, but the intent of copyright was to encourage artists to create new works for the benefit of society. It wasn't because there's some inalienable right to protect their ideas - it was a trade: "limited monopoly" for "new creation".What benefit are the rest of us in society getting in exchange for this rule you want to impose upon us?

No one has a natural right to have their work protected by copyright. Copyright is supposed to be a deal to encourage creativity _and_ benefit the public domain.Capitalists have distorted it to be a means to pay the producers (ie capital holders) over-and-over whilst eroding the public domain.The default position is if you (a creator) make a work available anyone can copy it, alter it, resell it for free. I don't think that is right, but what we currently have is IMO not a sufficient

The point of copyright is to incentivize the creation of new works, at the expense of making those works less available. Adding additional copyright restrictions to existing work from decades ago does nothing to incentivize the creation of new works. It's all cost and no benefit.

Copyright exists to incentivize authors, artists, scientists, etc. to create original works by providing a temporary monopoly.The arguments suggesting that people shouldn't benefit from their work on an individual level, and pointing to music piracy as an example of why we shouldn't try, strike me as arguments for general inaction and fatalism. Not sure what the goal is, there...

Copyrights are more often used to defend large corporations than small creators. As long everybody has a level playing field and individuals benefit from weaker copyright laws, it might actually make the world a better place. I'm not arguing for the complete elimination of copyright protections, but today's laws, in particular copyright duration, are immoral. This is as good of a starting point as any assuming OpenAI isn't the only who gets to benefit from it.

Copyright is a deal with society. One might just as well ask why an author has any say over transactions between two independent third parties. The answer is because it has been deemed useful for the encouragement of creative works to provide for that say. It's not immutable and the rules can easily be changed if society thinks they should be.

Not to get into the argument (if you can't understand the difference between copyright infringement and theft, good luck), but the suggestion that no one would create work without copyright is absurd.Plenty of music is released for free, many photographers are happy just to have someone see their work, and lots of software is written with very permissive licenses.Remember, the entire point of copyright is to benefit society by having more works available to the public. That's it. I don't b