You made a logical mistake of confusing these two statements: 1. "Copyright made it possible for an artist to make a living without having a wealthy patron" 2.

You made a logical mistake of confusing these two statements: 1. "Copyright made it possible for an artist to make a living without having a wealthy patron" 2. "Copyright WAS MEANT to make it possible for an artists to make a living without having a wealthy patron" You seem to think that by disproving (2) you also disprove (1), which is false. (1) is true. (2) may well be false, it doesn't matter. Your comments about a haircut being a service, not a product, have no bearing on my point that we are approaching a situation in which a hairdresser is rewarded by society for his work, but a songwriter is not. I'm sorry, but pointing out mistakes like this (and if you'd applied the principle of charity you would've seen that it is not quite a mistake) only distracts from the actual discussion. I'm glad you agree we should find ways to reward the creation of art. I am open to possibilities other than copyright. But so far all I've seen is a lot of handwaving and no workable model.