Subsidizing the cost of current production of stuff (whether hardware or immaterial) is an actual concern. The easiest solution of course is to abolish money an

Subsidizing the cost of current production of stuff (whether hardware or immaterial) is an actual concern. The easiest solution of course is to abolish money and private property and to abundantly redistribute power and wealth, but that's not happening anytime soon as privileges cannot be abolished through wishful thinking or self-criticism from the elites. On the other hand, subsidizing the cost of production of information that's already been produced and account for? That makes no sense from an economic perspective. If you're talking about reaping benefits for past work (not accounting for a "cost" because past production costs nothing in the present by definition), it raises ethical questions: why would the newspaper/editor get paid and not the actual author, now that the logistical work of publishing the article has been accounted for (and even profited upon) by the editor? There is nothing inherently natural or fair about copyright laws. We need broader perspectives if we want to develop a knowledge economy based on sharing information and resources for social progress, if you'd like to call it like that.