The underlying conceit is that a marketplace-oriented model is the only, or even the right, way to encourage creative work. A significant amount of the spend o

The underlying conceit is that a marketplace-oriented model is the only, or even the right, way to encourage creative work. A significant amount of the spend on creative works goes to overhead pretty much only enabled by copyright. No copyright means a massive reduction in legal and accounting complexity. I'd suspect copyright also tends to encourage a "short tail" of highly successful works. We only have one official source for Oppenheimer or Stairway to Heaven, rather than thousands of tweaked and extended versions sharing the same market. Relying on market forces to bankroll creativity also optimizes for a weird niche-- familiar enough to be easily saleable, but distinct enough to avoid legal hassle. Does it incentivize pushing the envelope? We could take the $28 bazillion a year we spend on content as a society, pipe it into endowments and grants, and increase the number of professional creatives. Yes, this might have to be administered as a tax-and-spend by the state, but it's certainly an alternative to consider.