[satvikpendem]

People have been paid artists before copyright even existed, what some might call patronage.

[freejazz]

And?

[satvikpendem]

Therefore copyright is not necessary.

[freejazz]

That's a big leap

[Lerc]

For strict definitiond of necessary (see also sufficient) this is correct.

A is not necessary for B if a single instance of B exists without A.

In colloquial terms it is frequently used to suggest a recommendation with an imperitive need.

Different things for the same word. Only the former can be used to determine if something is necessary, the latter is a subjective assertion and can have no proof either way.

[satvikpendem]

It worked before so why would copyright be in any way necessary?

[freejazz]

The idea that art was made at all contradicts a premise offered by no one

[satvikpendem]

You just replied "and" so not sure what premise you're even offing then.