Because here, in the post-industrial world, it's very hard to make a living from one-off works of craftsmanship. That didn't used to be the case, when that was the only way to get things made. It happens today, but the economics make it an unusual situation. The labor involved forces the per-unit prices to be stratospheric, vastly limiting the market.

But we have an alternative: leverage digital technology's nigh-zero marginal costs and charge very reasonable prices to large numbers of people.

The idea that because the marginal cost is zero that the cost should be zero is a horribly greedy devaluation of creative labor.

So I'm all for new economic structures, but AFAICT no one's stepped up with a better way that's actually proven to allow creative folks to continue to make a living. (Or that even has a snowball's chance once tried outside of armchair philosophizing.)

One last thought, since it's universally sizable corporations who control those digital distribution channels... do we REALLY want to cede even more power over content to these entities? If we just drop IP laws, that further enriches these corps at the cost of individual and/or small creators. That makes no sense to me whatsoever.

Patronage has existed for a long time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patronage#Arts

> Humans have always created art. Modern conceptions of intellectual property have not always existed. Why would art depend on that?

Eh? The people who painted on cave walls surely didn't get paid, but they also surely didn't spent much of their time painting. Michaelangelo got paid, painted full time, and achieved mastery. He didn't need IP because copying a painting required a painter. Whatever you think of IP, it's a modern idea to address a modern situation.

Yes, there will always be art. But mastery and time are linked, and time and money are linked. If you want full-time artists, they need money somehow.