Your reply conflates two things: copyright and big labels. The control of artistic expression landed in the hands of big corporations because only big corporati

Your reply conflates two things: copyright and big labels. The control of artistic expression landed in the hands of big corporations because only big corporations could handle three expensive things: 1) production, 2) distribution and 3) promotion. All three of these things have recently become way cheaper thanks to digital tech. Big labels are becoming less powerful every minute. It is now perfectly possible for an unsigned band to produce their own recordings in a home studio, sell them on the Web and promote them on the Web as well. If copyright is abolished, this will no longer be possible because the band will no longer have any right to profit from the use of their songs. Even if a million people love their song and listen to it every day, they get zilch. In short, I see the big label problem, but the problem was never copyright. The problem was expensive production/distribution/promotion. "They don't have a natural right to be compensated for the work they want to do." Copyright does not give people the right to get compensated for what they want to do. It compensates people if they make something that other people want to use. I don't want to talk about "natural rights". I find the notion fuzzy and suspect. I think it only complicates the issue at hand. I would like to live in a world where people get rewarded when they contribute to society. (Someone who writes a song or book or software program that a lot of people like is a contributor to society.) Either you find that vision desirable or not.