> Germany in the 1800s did not have copyright protection, and it was boom time for them Because England's book publishers had a cartel. Eckhard Höffner's argu

> Germany in the 1800s did not have copyright protection, and it was boom time for them Because England's book publishers had a cartel. Eckhard Höffner's argument is absurd on the face of it (he basically says: England had copyright, Germany did not, Germany published more books, therefore not having a copyright causes you to publish more books). He also didn't bother to look to other places, like the US. > Musicians make tons of money from live performances A vanishingly small number of musicians make tons of money from live performances. Music is probably the defining example of the need for copyright. > Patronage is not a bad system. I don't know why you think it is. Just look at all the incredible medieval art resulting from it. Yes, check out all that medieval art of things unintersting to wealthy people and the Church. Patronage was, and is, a horrible system. It is art feudalism and serfdom. You're basically arguing that Elon Musk gets to determine what art is made. > The free software industry is thriving. I'm sure Canonical is raking in the money compared to Microsoft. But let's get back to the item you ignored: by eliminating copyright, you are effectively destroying viral licenses and the free software movement that goes with them.