How do cotton farm owners make money if they have to pay their employees? Saying we need (c)opywrong laws to have creative content is like saying we need slavery to have cotton. It's just completely false and absurd.
So how does this apply to creative digital artists? Are you suggesting that they all need to be employed by someone else? How does THAT person make money on the digital product?
Seems to me you don't have a completely formed thought around this entire concept and therefore can't explain.
The United States government employs more knowledge workers than all other companies (see NIH, DoD, CDC, NASA, NOAA, NWS, et cetera). Everything they produce is public domain, by law. And yet, they still get paid!
You are arguing for slavery on behalf of slaveowners. We don't need slavery. We still have cotton even after the 13th Amendment (we actually have more and better cotton now), and we will still have creative works after the passing of the Intellectual Freedom Amendment (we actually will have more and better creative works). You are on the wrong side of history.
I’ve argued for nothing more than you to produce an argument. And yet you still haven’t.
Back to digital books: how does an author get paid for writing when there’s no legal protection for his work? It costs nothing for any customer to forward along copies. Without laws to allow a temporary monopoly, the author might see a few sales. Pricing one’s time for so few sales (ergo higher prices) will inevitably encourage further free copying. In a society of capitalism, where would the motivation to create (and iterate, and hone) come from without a monopoly on copying?
If the naysayers of IP laws want to advocate for a different, non-capitalist paradigm, that’s fine. But the lack of intellectual rigor behind the “eliminate IP laws” argument isn’t everyone else’s fault when they fail to make it convincing.