To be fair, nfoz seems to understand and accept that this is how copyright law works (in the U.S. at least; in many other countries copyright is treated as a natural right, akin to property).

He also states it's reasonable to agree with such law, which it undoubtedly is.

But I think he's being reasonable too, suggesting there could be alternatives. Like most of us here, I make my living out of copyright law. But I'm far from sure it the best way to deal with compensating creative, trivially reproducible work.

Fair enough.

For what it's worth: I'm not sure it's the "best" way, but I'm more sure that it's the optimal way in a market economy. Things should cost what they're worth to buyers, and coercion (which is what infringement is) should be taken out of that equation.

Copyright law is being used both for 'good' and for 'bad' purposes in roughly equal measures. Some creators make some money, plenty don't, quite a few non-creators manage to get their hands by hook or by crook (or even legal transfer) on some rights and seek rent on them for all those rights are worth or more if they can.

Copyright is a very double edged sword at best.

It sounds like he was describing more of a commission system - i.e. "hey, I'll give you $1000 to take this super-duper-awesome photo of this grasshopper that's sitting on my windowsill right now" or "hey, I'll give you $1000000 and cover transportation/lodging expenses if you agree to tag along with our entomological team and take photographs of this new species of dung beetle we discovered in Sudan".