The argument of "well you didn't invent TCP/IP so you can't expect to make money distributing digital copies of your music" is the slipperiest of slippery slopes, as none of us personally created all the technologies we use to make a living. I use a laptop, text editor, and web browser, none of which I created: have I forfeit my right to make a living as a web developer?
It seems that the simplest, most generic expression of your argument (correct me if I'm wrong) is "No one can reasonably expect to make money on anything which can be reproduced digitally, and this is more or less fair." I disagree.
If I take an microphone from you, you don't have an microphone. If I copy a song from you, you still have the song yourself.
It might be that you don't see the difference but I do and therein is our disagreement.
In the absence of a contract (if I just decided to work for a day for you without your prior agreement to pay for the day of work), yes. Doing work does not automatically create an obligation of others to pay you for having done it.
There are two things that can create such an obligation:
* altering something you already had (such as an object or your body)
* a contract between you and another party
Let's turn it around.
Would you pay for someone who sent you a video of some work they did for someone else?
..and so I have to buy a new one if we both want to have one at the same time.
"If I copy a song from you, you still have the song yourself."
Awesome, we can just buy one then and split the cost! But why stop there? Let's also give a copy to Tom, Dick and Harry so that each pays 20%! Now, what if we could somehow share the song and the cost with a hundred million people across the world..
In fact I can chip in and share it with 200 friends if I want to.
You see the difference?
That is the difference.
It's not how things work.
Generally the more niche something is the less fans it will have but the more those fans will love it.
A lot of pop music and modern moves + video games are designed specifically to appeal a bit to a large number of people. It's almost impossible to create something that appeals a lot to everyone.
So the other option is to find a small niche following and concentrate on extracting the most amount of money from them. I imagine that without some form of copyright most of the music produced would either be stuff produced by musicians for other musicians or for the upper classes who would fund it's continued development.
There would be a lot less "angry prole" music.