>Copyright made it possible for an artist to make a living without having a wealthy patron. Excuse me, but that is bullshit. You seem to have exactly zero clue

>Copyright made it possible for an artist to make a living without having a wealthy patron. Excuse me, but that is bullshit. You seem to have exactly zero clue about the origins of copyright. Since I've explained this countless times here already, let me just quote myself from an older comment of mine: The fact is, copyright was never meant for creators. It was invented by distributors for distributors. The first copyright law was a censorship law to limit the amount of books printed when the printing press was was getting widely available in England that gave a total monopoly on publishing to a guild of publishers, without even attributing a book to the original author, but instead to the guild member who registered the book, attaining its newly invented "copyright". So no, copyright was never meant to "make it possible for an artists to make a living". >Copyright is the only proven way of producing an abundance of art CREATED FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC. Proven? Your throwing around fallacies here. There's nothing proven about this, it's quite the opposite already. Unlimited sharing has enabled the creation of more art than ever before. >I think it should be possible for a writer, musician or developer to make money from ACTUAL creative work If he or she can find a way to make money from it, sure why not. The point is, you cannot make that money with distribution anymore. That's a reality and there's nothing you can do about it. >Do we really want a system which rewards the creation of tangible products like tables and haircuts, but not the creation of ideas? In the 21. century? Seriously? Again your throwing completely unrelated things together. - A table is indeed a tangible good. You make one, then you can sell it, and have to make another. - A haircut is not a tangible good, it's a service. The hairdresser gets paid for the work he/she has done. - The creation of art isn't a tangible good either. It's best likened to a service, except many people do it proactively instead of waiting for someone to pay them to create art. Yes, we as a society should find ways to reward the creation of art. Copyright is not, and never was, the solution. >Environmental regulations also create artificial scarcity. Except there already is scarcity in nature. If there would be an infinite amount of fish, it would make no sense to regulate catching. Huge abundance != no scarcity. With reproducible art, there is truly no scarcity.