The underlying principle for all laws should be that they should serve society, not individuals. Unfortunately influence is more often wielded by individuals.

The underlying principle for all laws should be that they should serve society, not individuals. Unfortunately influence is more often wielded by individuals. I think this causes an inevitable drift away from societal benefit but there are people pushing against that tide. It is rather odd seeing a such a visceral reaction to a tweet that is, in essence, true. Copyright exists for the reason you give, and that's what the tweet is alluding to. I think we should always be reassessing the reasons for our laws. I'm inclined to think that while copyright is "a monetization strategy that enables some information related business models at the expense of others" It is one that overall benefits society, albeit I would also like to see changes along the lines of what you suggest. Having said that I don't think it inevitable that it will always be the case. Should there be one-day a post scarcity world where no-one is required to earn money to survive, perhaps it would be better to make all information un-owned. I am put in mind of a map I once saw showing the world map stretched to show an even population density, and then the birthplaces of the greatest intellectuals and artists that the world has produced. Realized creativity came from where the money already was. Vast populations of poor regions would have been producing individuals with a similar potential. Potential that went unrealized. That may seem unrelated to the topic of copyright, but I'm not sure it is. If we are to make decisions about which way we are headed, it is worth thinking about where we could go.