No, these laws were created to promote art being paid for.
This sort of worked! But maximizing the payout ≠ maximizing the breadth of distribution. It often is more lucrative to segment the market, only sell to those who is ready to pay more than a pittance, and never try to sell for cheaper to a wider audience. It's especially true for digital goods that can be perfectly moved around the globe in under half a second of latency.
They were created "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." Allowing creators to monetize their work is a means towards getting more creative work produced, not an end in itself.
Ironically, yes. That's the net effect. Not only for what sunks today, but also for what never gets to be, because they evaluate the current state of things and decide that it's not worth the effort trying to innovate in that area.
This sort of worked! But maximizing the payout ≠ maximizing the breadth of distribution. It often is more lucrative to segment the market, only sell to those who is ready to pay more than a pittance, and never try to sell for cheaper to a wider audience. It's especially true for digital goods that can be perfectly moved around the globe in under half a second of latency.