[dhume]

If distribution cost were high and creation cost insignificant, copyright would not be needed -- the creator can handle competition from other distributors of his creation because they have to cover the same costs he does. It's only when creation cost is significant relative to distribution cost that the creator cannot compete with other distributors. Digital distribution is the extreme case of this: the creator must cover the cost of creation, while his competitors have almost no costs to cover.

[vannevar]

If distribution cost were high and creation cost insignificant, copyright would not be needed -- the creator can handle competition from other distributors...

While this is probably true, it certainly doesn't mean that distributors want such competition. They want a competitive advantage, and it's much cheaper to get such an advantage by picking popular authors than having a technological arms race or price war with other distributors. Copyright was introduced to provide an artificial monopoly for distributors.

[VladRussian]

>It's only when creation cost is significant relative to distribution cost that the creator cannot compete with other distributors. Digital distribution is the extreme case of this: the creator must cover the cost of creation, while his competitors have almost no costs to cover.

nobody forces the creator to create [or distribute the work]. Keep it in/to yourself. Nope, somehow "creators" feel that the society is owing them the copyright protection.

[dhume]

nobody forces the creator to create [or distribute the work].

Of course not. We just want to encourage them to do so.

Nope, somehow "creators" feel that the society is owing them the copyright protection.

That's the agreement between this society and creators who publish their creations.