Eventually you would get no people spending anything on creation because it would simply be cheaper to use something that someone else has already created.
There are some forms of art which can survive on minimal economic returns. There are other forms of art which will not.
Fair thought, but here is another one: Don't hate the game, hate the players.
Yes there are problems with copyright protection laws, just like anything man-made. Except, the bigger problem is in people, their ideologies and cultures.
Those who think it's okay to rip someone's work and put their name on it, that's where the real problem is.
The game rules are in place, some abide by them and some don't.
It's funny, when you pour your blood sweat and tears into creating something you certainly feel a sense of ownership over the damned thing; it's your baby. But at the same time, witnessing much of the absurdity emerging out of the current state of copyright law, I'm starting to wonder whether you might be right.
I just have no idea how such an economy might operate and still remunerate creators for their work.
Humans created way before any one invented money. What you mean is, the high end wont get filthy rich. Real creators and innovators rarely think of the money, yet still create.
If it really is your "baby", then keep it to yourself, keep it safe. I wouldn't let any baby of mine out in to any marketplace alone.
For most of history, artists operated under the patronage system and were paid to create works. Almost every dead artist from the pre-copyright era who is still revered today was either a product of the patronage system or born into a wealthy family.
