That's a pretty good argument against copyright. Is it really worth losing the cultural intellectual commons so that the average author (nearly all authors, in fact) can make well below minimum wage? I'm unconvinced about that being a societally beneficial trade-off.

> minimum wage. If you enjoy reading, but don't think they deserve even that amount, well...

I think they shouldn't be attached to that old business model in a world where self-publishing is possible.

I also think generous UBI should exist, but I guess that's another issue.

And that's the thing. One could make the case that in a world of UBI, copyright diminishes in relevance. If the intent of copyright is to allow people to use capitalism to create wealth via their words so that they can live a "life of the mind" and pursue grand ideas... If UBI gets us the same goal then that does something to the good/harm balance of the temporary monopoly on ideas.

The key point is remembering that copyright isn't some divine right stemming from the muses blessing the author with their own exclusively-owned words; it's a right societies fabricate because we believe it will incentivize people to build new knowledge that eventually benefits everyone. It's that incentivization that's the goal.

I think we probably agree with each other. Even with UBI, I do think it makes sense to have some degree of copyright. Just to allow creatives room to breath and tell stories they want to tell without their narratives by more popular forks. That argument is a different issue altogether, though, I think, and we are nowhere near being in a context where we need to figure it out.

I do think UBI should be a minimum, and people should still receive compensation for work they produce that people enjoy. Just not exclusive rights and perpetual royalties and all this nonsense.