If the point is compensating creators, for the value added to objects sold at a (presumed) premium because of the addition of their “Intangible Property”, then we need only look to The Godless Commie Red Threat for the solution: collect a portion of every such copy sold, to be redistributed to the creators.

Of course, that was “The Old Way”, whose destruction was a condition of entry into the modern, international, monetary systems.

Why object to such a simple solution: Because it solves the problem, without creating “opportunities” for adjunct “tasks” (like controlling who can actually create those copies, how much they can be sold for, etc.). It’s very UNIXian, very unWindowsian (’nuff said).

I’m sympathetic to your points, but I didn’t want them to drown out the main discussion. Artistic remuneration may not be the widest, truest expression of the aims of copyright, but it’s definitely what people see as its naive function. In this discussion, I’m more concerned with accurately describing how I think most people think copyright works, rather than how they should think it works…

(One of the lesser points is that one should learn to write one’s native language well; but given the poetry of your query, I’m guessing you’ll have no trouble on that account.)

η