[danssig]

>or asking for donations after the fact.

Right, so if you provide a service you can charge what the market will bear but if you provide an art that happens to be convertible to digital form you need to get on your knees with your hat outstretched and beg for your income.

Do you people actually think about what you're saying?

[vidarh]

Society has no obligation to make your preferred business model profitable.

You don't have a right to make profit, only to try.

In this case copyright only exists as an explicit tradeoff by society in order to gain other benefits. If those benefits can be obtained cheaper and/or without the limits imposed by copyright through other means, or if society decides the tradeoff is not worth it, then tough.

[cobrausn]

Yes, but we don't have a completely free market. We can (and do, all the time actually) put in place rules and regulations that make favorable things which would not be under a completely free market. This can include laws against doing things you could do for free, such as copying some digital media and giving it away for free.

I personally don't think it's an unreasonable restriction until some way is figured out to compensate creators of digital media for their efforts that doesn't care about digital piracy. I do have a problem with some of the efforts that are being put in place to enforce these rules though, much in the same way I have a problem with the TSA.

[danssig]

The proper response here is for artists to stop producing until society decides art is worth paying for. Begging like a homeless person is not a business model.