Indeed, perhaps I should have said
There needs to be a way to support the creation of art.
Great, that way is called copyright. The author has the right to control who has the rights to distribute their work, and can require compensation in exchange for that right; what economists refer to as "selling".
The entire thesis of my commrnt is copyright is not that.
It awards a few creators outsize rewards, but suppress creation of many more.
It does not petform the job that it is supposed to do.
People have been paid artists before copyright even existed, what some might call patronage.
And?
Therefore copyright is not necessary.
That's a big leap
>There needs to be a way to support the creation of art.
Yeah, it's called "copyright."
Great, that way is called copyright. The author has the right to control who has the rights to distribute their work, and can require compensation in exchange for that right; what economists refer to as "selling".
The entire thesis of my commrnt is copyright is not that.
It awards a few creators outsize rewards, but suppress creation of many more.
It does not petform the job that it is supposed to do.
People have been paid artists before copyright even existed, what some might call patronage.
And?
Therefore copyright is not necessary.
That's a big leap
>There needs to be a way to support the creation of art.
Yeah, it's called "copyright."