[zb3]

What's awful here? This way it's just a social interaction with both sides satisfied, where's the problem?

I see a problem today, being spammed with shitty commercial "works" whereas I'd like to see something genuine and not just made for money.

[CodeSgt]

If not for the ability to monetize, there would be a small fraction of the total available work out there. From music, to movies, to video games. And for many, the quality we come to enjoy just wouldn’t be possible. Do you think we’d have a Skyrim, or GTA, or equivalent if there weren’t millions to be made to employ thousands of people to make it happen? What about the largest and most influential films and TV shows of the past decade? These things take money to produce. I could see the argument for music, maybe, but even then I don’t think it’d be sustainable. Just because an artist may enjoy working on their art after working 50 hours a week to pay the bills doesn’t mean they should HAVE to if their art is good enough and desired enough to sustain them, thus allowing them to create more and of a higher caliber (in theory).

[zb3]

I don't consume any of those, I'm just saying what would be better for me.

However, abolishing copyright is not the same as making monetization illegal. My view is that people should be paid for their WORK, and copying something doesn't make the author work more.

This'd mean the funds 'd need to be bootstrapped (crowdfunding?) before the work is done, but then it'd be free to distribute it.

[CodeSgt]

The first sentence of your initial comment I responded to was ‘It would be great if such "creative" works were simply impossible to monetize.’

[8note]

The difference being that the artist can still be monetized, even if the art isn't.

[8note]

You don't need to monetize via capital though -- you can pay people to do the creating directly. Eg. One of the biggest ways independent artists already get paid is via services like patreon