>In a world where your beliefs are supported by the courts, a creator's only means to ensure a revenue stream from their creations is to present them only in co

>In a world where your beliefs are supported by the courts, a creator's only means to ensure a revenue stream from their creations is to present them only in controlled physical environments free of digitizers. Bullcrap. They'd just have to make their money in ways that do not depend on distribution of non-scarce goods. And they already do. Musicians, for example, are performers. They have a service to sell. That's how many make their bucks. There's models like Kickstarter, where you pay upfront - for the act of creating, not for the eventual distribution (which is costless). Donations or patronage can be a valid source of income, too. Your claim that we need to restrict access to a good that is inherently not scarce (and indeed, not depletable) for artists to make a living at all is a disingenuous lie and flies in the face of reality.