This thread has a lot of arguments based entirely on beliefs about small bands and streaming services. Music is only a small part of copyright law.
There’s so much competition nowadays, almost no indie can achieve nearly enough sales for a living wage. And ironically, the best way to get more attention is to make your product free, hence more and more artists doing free + paid merch.
The YouTube income for most small creators get folded back into the channel. Getting a $100 check from YouTube isn’t going to pay your rent, but it makes purchasing some better lighting or a new microphone for the channel an easy choice, which in turn helps them grow and enjoy their hobby channel more.
The argument that the dollar amount is low and therefore it’s okay if we push it all the way to $0 is unconvincing for anyone familiar with how small time creators grow.
Not linking the author's name and patreon is a problem, but I don't think it needs laws and definitely not copyright; if somebody gets the video on the other place to link the original author's patreon, even if they're not who uploaded it, it benefits them and I don't see any serious issue.
What about illustrators who license their work? Knitters and crocheters who create patterns? There are countless people who sell creative output on a license-basis which would no longer exist in a world without copyright.
Already people who make visual art are demotivated by AI, follow literally any visual artist on Instagram and you’ll see this. Taking away copyright would make that look tiny in comparison.
A kid who grows up watching $favorite-show can never produce derivative works of that show within their lifetime.
Wow, is that a thing? If you're willing to share, I'd love to hear more about these vocations and how they make money.
As far as I know they sell the patterns, not the finished knitted artifact. Aspiring knitters buy them to enjoy knitting. The physical representation of the pattern isn't worth anything (just a piece of paper), what you're buying is a license to use their intellectual property, so I'd say they're making money from copyright.
Do you only care about professional artists or something? Amateur artists deserve legal protection for their artwork too :/
They’ll come across some talented little band playing some nice new tune in a tiny club, record it on their phone and give it to one of the existing boy-bands to play.
No need to sign up aspiring artists any more - just take their songs.
Of course it’s the boy band that will sell the merch and the concert tickets.
In fact if all of copyright operated with mechanical licenses it would be a much better system.
Moviemakers, authors, graphic designers, stone masons, song writers, ...
Not every artists is a musician.
Not every musician performs in venues to such an extent that it makes up most or all of their revenue.
Not every musicians output lends themselves to live performances, so they don't do them.
I'd be surprised if even 10% of artists in the EU or US are making their revenue as live musicians. Whatever the number, it ain't 99%.
Brief anecdote, currently working on a personal project and have commissioned an artist to design a few icons. Was a great experience, fun to work with them, more than happy with the result. Exclusive exploitation/usage rights were only transferred after full compensation was received.
If copyright were not a thing in both their and mine countries, screwing over commissioned artists would be even easier than it already and unfortunately tends to be (having done freelance work myself) as this idea that the artist retains their rights before that point wouldn't be the default and any protections/claims solely based on individual contracts.
Copyright can be flawed, yes, but taking away the core that is artists having their creations protected by default, without needing to manually apply or otherwise seek protection, I feel that shouldn't happen. Copyright, even today, does have merit in my book, though the lobbying efforts by Disney and co. along with post War western Europe loving to just copy US legislation wholesale without reflection have extended copyright further then I feel it should have been.
If you're at the point where you're making money from merch and concert tickets you're probably ahead of 99% of artists
I suppose we usually just call them "aspiring artists" then, but still