Intellectual property protections have a finite lifespan to begin with, and as a tenet of Western Civilization are barely 300 years old.
For works published before copyright laws existed or after property protections expire, anyone should be able to use it for anything forever without consent.
Intellectual work still manages to get funded in this 'insane world' - although given the classical artist/patron system has given way to state-based grants and a select capitalisation of Art post-Warhol, the concept of Universal Basic Income tends to be promoted the desired successor.
Speaking of insane worlds, how does the concept of the Public Domain work in yours?
Are you really saying that because IP protections are (and should be, I agree) time-limited, they're not doing anything in the first place? This is patently ridiculous.
> Speaking of insane worlds, how does the concept of the Public Domain work in yours?
Can you elaborate on what you're asking? I don't understand your question.
Your contention was that it was an insane position that anyone should be able to use a piece of literature or a song for anything forever without consent. I simply highlighted the absurdity of that based on the fact that:
1. Copyright protections as a concept are an incredibly modern phenomenon, mostly limited in practice to Western Capitalist Democracies. 2. Outside of a short monetisable window (albeit one extended and irrevocably marred by Disney/Sonny Bono) your 'insane' hypothesis is in fact the status quo 3. Much intellectual work is published into the Public Domain, and all copyrighted work eventually ends up in the Public Domain. Your position appears to presuppose a world without such an entity.
As to what copyright actually achieves? It's mostly a mechanism by which the media gatekeepers and owners of capital use legislative and social imbalance of power to deny artist the rights and royalties for mechanical reproduction and otherwise impose financial serfdom.
This is achieved mainly by Copyright Enclosure, whereby musicians are typically pressured or contractually obligated to surrender their master recordings and intellectual property, and by contractual clauses like Controlled Composition Clauses, whereby Labels reduce the mechanical royalties they pay to artists who write their own songs, often paying below the standard statutory rate.