It also seems to overlook the typical expectation of non-zero revenue.

I'm not overlooking it, it's the brokenness of digital distribution that I'm trying to underscore. If I spend four hours baking a cake, I can sell that cake and make some money. But then I don't have that cake any more so I have to bake another one in order to make more money. If I spend four hours baking an mp4, I can sell infinity cakes. In the pre-Internet analog age, we invented the copyright system so someone else couldn't come along and steal money from the original baker, err writer. But back then, it still took quite a lot of effort to make and distribute those copies. Digital distribution over the Internet makes it so dramatically easier that copyright and its corner of capitalism is broken and we need a new system to properly handle this relatively new invention we have on our hands.

Because what is the point of the whole system? We have one system for two different types of goods. One type is limited in supply because it's physical in nature. The other type isn't really limited in supply because it's digital. Why then should the same kind of money be used to pay for them? How about having two parallel money systems, one of physical goods and one for digital goods. How about for digital goods we eliminate copyright and replace it with a system where we grant every person 864.00 digital dollars (DD) each day, and track what eve check person spends their time watching, then distribute the DDs accordingly. So if I spend 2 hours watching a Disney movie, they get DD 72.00 and they further redistribute those DDs to everyone who played a part in its creation.

Then, the government sets up a system where it will buy DDs for $s, so people will still want to make digital goods, but it becomes a distinct system. This lets us ease into a post-scarcity world - because we absolutely already are there for digital goods - but without having to solve some of the issues that UBI faces.