>arguments how an author, musician, etc. would build a portfolio of assets from which they could attain any measure of financial security in this world? As I'm

>arguments how an author, musician, etc. would build a portfolio of assets from which they could attain any measure of financial security in this world? As I'm looking for passive income from copyright royalties, I'm biased but I will attempt to explain the counterargument as fairly as I can. I've read many philosophical arguments about copyrights. Some arguments against copyrights start from a different premise than you do. Your question assumes the premise that the world "owes" artists the benefit of copyright. No matter how strongly you feel about that, if you want to engage with the other side, you have to temporarily suspend that premise. The counterargument says that copyrights for music, art, text is a quirk made possible by technology (Gutenberg press, vinyl & CD replication, etc.) instead of a fundamental economic right. They can point to other areas of creativity that don't enjoy copyrights and yet new ideas flourish: Andrew Wiles spends years solving Fermat's Last Theorem. He will get no copyright or royalties from that breakthrough. He does get bragging rights. So pure abstract mathematicians can't get rich off of theorem proving and buy mansions and sports cars like Michael Jackson. A chef or bartender inventing a new recipe for food or mixed drink can't copyright their ingredient list. (They can keep it secret but "trade secrets" such as CocaCola formula is a different concept from copyrights.) An interesting economic situation is poetry. Poetry is copyrighted but hardly anyone can make a living at it. Poets have day jobs such as a professor of English at a University. The royalties from poetry books are miniscule. If they give poetry recitals, it's usually performed for free. Does the world "owe" poets a living such that they don't have to moonlight as an English professor? Well, so far, that's what they've been doing. They can't buy mansions and sports cars, or even a middle class living with poetry royalties but they continue to write them. One of the greatest poems/stories of all time is The Iliad and that never had copyright protection. What would a world without copyrights for musicians look like? Probably the non-performing musicians would have to moonlight with day jobs, or get sponsorships (patrons, crowdfunding). Etc. That scenario looks "worse" because all of us discussing it were born after copyrights have been entrenched. Like I said, we'd to have erase that premise to imagine it differently. I find the counterarguments fascinating but I continue with pursuing copyright royalties because that's the current configuration we live in.