the thing about copyright abolition is that. what makes theft bad is that something is taken away from its rightful owner. in this sense, copyright infringement is literally not theft, because making a copy of something doesn't tangibly cause the original owner to lose anything that they would otherwise have. copyright enforcement, on the other hand, does take away people's access to what should be theirs. anyone who makes art while employed by a corporation and is unable to sell their work because it does not belong to them, anyone who's been sued by a pop musician for making music that sounds vaguely similar if you don't allow the jury to listen to the actual songs, these people have far more in common with victims of theft than anyone whose copyright has been infringed
>anyone who makes art while employed by a corporation and is unable to sell their work because it does not belong to them
I don't buy that this is an issue with copyright law. This is an issue with the amount of power corporations hold and how easily that can extract value from workers without giving them their share. The problem here doesn't come from copyright existing, it comes from companies having the power to write into all creative's contracts "if you make something while working for us we own 100% of the copyrights instead of you" and then being able to cut the worker out of profits of that work.
If, when a company made a million dollars off of a worker's art, the creator got a majority of that money, or if the worker maintained a percentage of the rights to the work then this problem you're describing would go away without any change to copyright law. This isn't even a copyright specific issue. If I, while working at an insurance company, figure out some heuristic or process that lets me process claims twice as quickly and bring it to the company to and makes it part of the standard workflow then the company doubles their productivity and I get nothing (maybe a one time bonus or small raise if I'm lucky). It's the same issue and copyright never came into it.
Even if copyright, as a legal framework, was abolished tomorrow, the day afterwards Disney and the like would just add a clause to all their worker's contracts effectively making them sign away permission to sell their own copies of the work that was functionally, for the worker, exactly the same situation they had under copyright in this regard because they would still have the power and money to enforce that as a standard of employment contracts which is the actual source of this problem. The industries power to create grossly unfair agreements between workers and employers with clauses like "we get 100% of the copyright to your work".
"see the problem here is that you have a legal tool that allows you to sue, demand money and censor people who make art similar enough to yours, and that is a good thing! but your employers can choerce you into giving away that power to them, so they can use it for themselves, even against you. and thats a bad thing because the power to sue, extort and censor should be rightfully yours, that weapon is your god given right and noone should be allowed to take it away from you"





















