upvote
> if copyright was abolished, people (even rich) still want art, so studios would still end up paying artists, from patronage or some other system.

Yes, it would be exclusively the domain of the rich and powerful. If you're a little guy, they'll just shamelessly take what you make, because abolishing copyright abolishes the legal protections a small-time creator depends on.

Let's say you put a ton of effort into making an awesome YouTube channel people love. Copyright is what means a bunch of randos can't just copy all your work and take all the revenue from it. They can even undercut you, because they don't actually have the costs of creating anything. Copyright give you recourse.

reply
> If you're a little guy, they'll just shamelessly take what you make

Like LLM scrapers?

> Copyright is what means a bunch of randos can't just copy all your work and take all the revenue from it. They can even undercut you

If copyright is abolished, nobody's getting revenue from views. They can resell your work for $0, or can try charging, but word spreads and everyone will seek the free alternative (yours).

Attribution is different, but covered by trademark. Or may be covered by trusted sources like internet archives which prove who was first.

reply
YouTube has just so much garbage that drags on. It would be a good thing to have less of it.

Also, just because randos will copy content doesn't mean that users will go to other channels to view it if they subscribe to your channel.

reply