> The claim in the article isn't that nobody would
> write and perform music without copyright, but that
> there would be less of it, and that it would be of
> lower quality.
That's an arbitrary claim. There's no evidence of it. You can't produce evidence because we don't know what the opportunity cost of all this enforcement is.
> Authors and game designers
There's plenty of opportunities for them too. Read _Against Intellectual Monopoly_ by Boldrin/Levine from page 22. The section ends, "SO we can realistically conclude that if J K Rowling were forced to publish her book without the benefit of copyright, she might reasonably expect to sell the book to a publishiing house for several million dollars - or more. This is certainly quite a bit less money than she earns under the current copyright regime. But it seems likely, given her previous occupation as a part-time French teacher, that it would still give her adequate incentive to produce her great works of literature".
> so the only way they can make money is by
> actually selling copies of their work, which
> requires intellectual property rights
That's not correct, and the above chapter covers this too. Cliff's notes: where there is no IP, there's a rush when something is released to it into print and on the market. Creators can sell the rights to first release for a fortune. The US government made a fortune on the official 9-11 report by auctioning off first-access rights along these lines.
People can also make money by publishing something, and then getting a job teaching (or some other expert capacity) in the field.
> The idea that copyright only benefits the
> select few in the music industry isn't true,
> either. Labels often get caught plagiarizing songs
> that were written by small artists and handing them
> to big-name artists that they have under contract.
> With copyright, the smaller artists have an uphill
> battle. Without copyright, they have no weapons
> whatsoever.
All discussions about the merits of copyright need to consider the opportunity cost of copyright as well as the advantages.
Given the absolute absence of evidence, the default needs to be no copyright, because copyright intrudes on our freedom. To be enforced, it's necessary to reach further and further into the privacy of people's lives and homes, and that is incompatible with the spirit of live-and-let live that is the foundation of free society.
I've just thought of a new counterclaim to the idea that we need to find a way to protect certain kinds of jobs. What about dancers? I've seen people make all these claims about protecting musicians, but what about dancers? Dancers don't make much money, and copyright doesn't provide for them. Not that copyright protects musicians either - it doesn't - but that's the claim so let's role with it for the purpose of pointing out this new inconsistency. Should the state also then be required to invent new and arbitrary business systems so that dancers should be able to make a living?