The EU apparently has copyright-like protections for databases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sui_generis_database_right

EU has "sweat of the brow" doctrine, US does not.

Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dj9NJZUomjQ

Even copying the real world is copyrightable. If you take a picture of a street, you own the copyright to it.

Shouldn't you?

PS: Not including the weird exceptions in the EU of monuments and such.

There's some precedent in the US that "factual" photographs that have no creative element are not copyrightable. In practice, I think various contracts and EULAs will override copyright questions anyway.

> Shouldn't you?

Somehow I have thought that monopolies are so generally accepted as harmful, that it would be the proponents of monopolies that have the burden of proof. Not the ones who oppose monopolies.

So instead of just assuming that copyrights are good for society, can you provide some evidence?

Copyright of a picture of a street isn't a monopoly on that street, you can head over there and take a picture of the street yourself.

Other than that, just thing of photographers who spend their life working on photography. Copyright allows them to charge for their work, or for a software developer to charge for their work.

Removing copyright entirely means you can only monetize your work based on the marginal cost, the result is zero monetization for any type of work that has near-zero marginal cost, such as a book, movies, photography, etc.

Sure, you can argue that we should move to the fairyland dream scenario where everyone is beautifully funded by fans and so on. We've been there, it was how art in the Middle Ages worked.

Anyway, that is a separate discussion:

1) Given that copyright exists, should X be copyrightable?

2) Should copyright exist?