If musicians can create and distribute their content on their own (for free) and sustain themselves entirely from donations and/or performances they are completely free to do that. What does that have to do with IP law?
Donations are exactly that, a rich patron willing to support you.
So you're basically getting upset over some made up reality where currently musicians don't need support from rich people, but that reality only exists in your head.
First I was never talking about musicians specifically, secondly modern (Patreon/etc.) style donation model is in my opinion overall much better that being dependent on a small number of rich donors. However that seems besides the point, authors/creators are free to chose how they distribute their content and what business model they want to adopt (obviously different models work better in different industries).
You are somehow implying that denying them that choice would improve something? Can you explain?
> like that's not the case today, which is either duplicitous or just naiive.
Really? Most successful authors are musicians are dependent on 1 or 2 individual patron? Not thousands or even millions of people willing to pay for their content (in some form)?
e.g. how many successful fiction authors don't make money off copy distribution of their "art"?
Regardless I don't see how is this a legitimate argument (even if it were accurate), authors/creators should be free to chose their monetization model themselves.
> These IP laws, at least their interpretation acts against the public interest, creators included.
On the whole I certainly don't agree at all (obviously the current system is not perfect and need to be improved. Also could you explain how exactly they act against creators interests?
> Performance, training and teaching, patronage, custom requests, etc.
Yes, let's go back to the middle ages when when you could only be an artist/writer/etc. if you found a rich patron willing to support you