> Did the creatives lose out on monetary gains in those cases? Certainly. And copyright law evolved to solve that problem. Problem? Are you sure this is reall

> Did the creatives lose out on monetary gains in those cases? Certainly. And copyright law evolved to solve that problem. Problem? Are you sure this is really a problem? We assume by default that it is, but think of this for a second: on the one hand, monetary benefits for a few. On the other, a restriction on the liberty to copy and publish for everyone. This wasn't always the case: historically, only a few people had the ability to share or publish anything. Copyright wasn't so unbalanced then. Now however we have the internet. Given this asymmetry, the well being of creative people itself is secondary to the well being of everyone else. The real reason why creative people should be paid is because we want everyone else to be able to enjoy their creations. It's easy to get caught up in individualistic considerations, such as "I did, it so I deserve a reward", or the opposition between "the" artist and "the" consumer. This can reduce to ridiculous arithmetic errors, such as, the picture of "the" starving artist that lost significant income because "the" consumer didn't pay $5 for a song. We need to grow a sense of scale.