In the case of music , nearly all of the money goes to corporations and thus shareholders. It does not go to making new art. DRM and anti-share laws benefit t

In the case of music , nearly all of the money goes to corporations and thus shareholders. It does not go to making new art. DRM and anti-share laws benefit the big players who seek to control culture. They use this money to manipulate the music that gets played, and as sole gatekeepers strongarm artists into exploitative contracts. Before the net it was really hard to find out about good music - the radio was payola slop - finding & listening to it could take months. This stranglehold has been weakened by the internet to the benefit of creators and fans - indie labels and self publishing have exploded. Art is a field that advances, like science building apon the past - in this way copyright directly opposes creativity. Just because someone makes something doesn't mean they SHOULD be paid but now it is more likely they could reach an appreciative audience. Copying, deriving and sharing are the natural state - we give up the natural state with a limited copyright to enhace the public domain - this no longer happens. Perhaps only the creator should enjoy copyright and the rights cannot be sold. Why should rights be sold ?