Problem? Are you sure this is really a problem? We assume by default that it is, but think of this for a second: on the one hand, monetary benefits for a few. On the other, a restriction on the liberty to copy and publish for everyone.
This wasn't always the case: historically, only a few people had the ability to share or publish anything. Copyright wasn't so unbalanced then. Now however we have the internet.
Given this asymmetry, the well being of creative people itself is secondary to the well being of everyone else. The real reason why creative people should be paid is because we want everyone else to be able to enjoy their creations.
It's easy to get caught up in individualistic considerations, such as "I did, it so I deserve a reward", or the opposition between "the" artist and "the" consumer. This can reduce to ridiculous arithmetic errors, such as, the picture of "the" starving artist that lost significant income because "the" consumer didn't pay $5 for a song.
We need to grow a sense of scale.
Forever unto me, the tuple (Int, Int) shall be mine.
True, though I suggest a better alternative is that some types of work -- in particular, those necessary for effective communication or for interoperability -- should be explicitly exempt from copyright protection, regardless of any creative element.
Copyright itself is an economic trade-off, sacrificing some freedom in the interests of promoting what is considered a greater good.
In the same spirit, I would argue that the ability of different parties to communicate and work together effectively is a greater good than anything copyright incentivizes and should therefore take precedence.
Curiously, the US legal system already recognises a similar principle in the way it treats typefaces. I submit that analogous treatment is appropriate for APIs, file formats, communications protocols, and the like.
you're moving the goalposts. post you responded to was not questioning the right of creators to be compensated for their work.
The complaint was that "that's not how facts work" but the statement in question was in fact verifiable.
If you want to provide proof of a better solution, go for it. Proof that there does not exist a better solution is logically impossible, so clearly not a reasonable request.
Were creative works shared, copied, and appropriated with impunity when it was perfectly legal to do so? Why, yes they were! Did the creatives lose out on monetary gains in those cases? Certainly. And copyright law evolved to solve that problem. You are perfectly free to believe it wasn't a problem in the first place, or that the medicine is worse than the disease, but I think you have to make the case for why creatives should not be paid for their work, or how else outside of market economies we should pay creatives for their work, if you believe that would be a better system.