> Selling author signings, talks, authorized copies, subscriptions/merch, sponsorships.

Most of these turn intellectual work into that of indie musicians, or outright beggars. You are stepping dangerously close to stripping people rights in favour of giant AI companies.

> How do newfangled "content creators" fund their work? We already live in this world.

"Content creators" heavily rely on IP protections. You could always try taking some youtube videos with 100M views, altering them a bit an using them as your own and seeing how that goes down. Do let me know!

> Maybe not all creative works are deserving of monopoly profits just by sitting on the ass in any case, and should stand on their own merits by producing downstream value that can be sold for whatever they can be sold for, by whoever puts in the work to deliver the value to the end user in a competitive manner. You know, open markets.

And open market is not one where I can say that you are just sitting on your ass, so I'll take your stuff and sell it.

> Attribution I can see. Consent or payment beyond market value, why?

Because it's my stuff of course! And why should one even pay market value in your world? Why not always 0?

> Just because you put in a billion hours to make a shitty $1 value output I should pay you a billion hours worth of labor?

What in the world are you on about? If the price someone puts on their IP seems too high to you, you should not pay that price. We wholeheartedly agree. Where we disagree is where you from this conclude that you can just choose the price yourself and take it anyway!