[alphabeta2024]

The whole objective of copyright is to encourage dissemination of knowledge. The idea originally was that by allowing authors some exclusivity over their creations for some years, there would be economic incentives to produce various technical, cultural works. The artificial monopoly is a means to an end, not an end to itself.

[xhkkffbf]

This.

There are a few people who might write a book and give it away for free, but if you want professional artists you need to ensure that they can make money by selling copies. In other words, someone like the Internet Archive won't start giving it away for free.

In any case, calling it a "monopoly" is a bit unfair. It's like saying the rape laws give a woman a "monopoly" on her body. No one is stopped from creating their own art, just from plagiarizing others.

[93po]

in a kind constructive way: if you can find non-rape analogies, it might be kinder to people who are sensitive to that word

[mistrial9]

no - monopoly has a smaller, technical meaning in law.