[constantcrying]

They can work for their living like I do or get a following/sponsors which pays for their creative output. The later works quite well in the case of YouTube. YouTubers generally have proven that it is absolutely possible to commercialize an artistic output that is given out for free, removing IP laws would have essentially zero effect on them.

Nobody owes artists the ability to make a living just for being artists.

[voidhorse]

> They can work for their living like I do

Unless you have a service industry job or construct material goods, by your own arguments, I see no reason I should pay you either if you work on anything remotely related to intangibles like software.

I'm getting the sense that your perspective is colored more by some personal bias on what art is, what art making entails, and what art is good, rather than any sound logical principles around labor and economics, which is what any reasonable approach to IP should actually be based on.

[aezart]

Art is labor. Just because the end result is an "idea" with no scarcity doesn't mean that time, energy, blood, sweat, and tears didn't go into making it. I consider profiting off someone else's art without compensating them for that work to basically be wage theft.

[constantcrying]

Almost all art is created without any compensation. Some failed rock band should not be given money because they "tried hard".

Nobody owes artists commercial success for the act of making art.

The idea that it is work theft not to compensate failed artist is ridiculous. Who is to pay, the state?

Of course many of the most successful creators in the world give their creations away for free. They do not charge a single cent from their watchers and still can make enormous amounts of money. YouTube proved that you do not need IP protection to become wealthy from your creations. YouTubers make money in other ways, totally independent from policing their IP.

[aezart]

I don't know what you're arguing against but it's certainly not the point I was making.

I didn't say "artists should be given money because they tried hard." I said that if you're profiting off someone's work, you should pay them.

[constantcrying]

Haha. Do you think this applies to the FOSS world? What a cruel world you must think we live in.

[6P58r3MXJSLi]

FOSS licenses explicitly grant you some rights, exactly because the author(s) wanted to do so.

Most of what FOSS license do is explicitly denying the exploitation by someone or some entity wanting to profit from it, without giving anything back.

For example

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html

[constantcrying]

Seems irrelevant to the point.