you poop AFTER you shower???

Expect...no? Like, copyright gets abused a lot, but it's still used for its intended purpose of protecting small time creators and artists all the time.

Sorry, I meant UBI for everyone, including artists.

Pretty sure OP meant UBI for everyone, as in its a much better fight than the fight against AI Art

The solution is UBI and then tax incomes. It gives everyone the opportunity to persue goals, and if you make enough extra it is taxes to pay for everyone else to have the same opportunity. Persue art if you wish. If it's successful you'll get to pay it forward. You don't have to struggle to just survive while pursuing those goals.

I completely agree on giving UBI to everyone, Imagine a world without artists. Without movies, TV shows, theaters, musicals, museums, books, music, sculpture, paintings, architecture.

Imagine how dull everything would be, without the creativity and imagination of these people out to use. But nowaday people just say Y0u_sH0uLd_sTuDy_SoMeThInG_t0_hAvE_iNc0mE, ignoring the consequences of the absence of arts

Based

All of which is your work.

They're suggesting UBI in place of copyright. So all that work your doing right now could be stolen by others and sold for cheaper than you would sell it, without your permission. So companies like Disney can just take it and put it in a movie or something, without paying you.

All you would get would be your UBI, they would get the profit.

You say that like that would be bad.

Who fights for having people in braindead jobs, working unsafe conditions, Christ almighty. Check please.

The reason it's called universal is because everyone gets it.

Oh nooooo, people won't be as strongly bound to corporations anymore! Whatever will we do?

You say that like it's a bad thing. We could use more people who can afford to make art in the world, even if a lot of it would be shitty art.

Not really. Basic income is - just that. Basic. It'll cover your necessities and put a roof over your head, but not much else

Id much rather continue working so that I can afford luxury items (my hobbies are as expensive as they are time consuming). I'd imagine most would feel the same.

Opponents of UBI all seem to have this bizarre notion that most people would be willing to take a big step down lifestyle wise to not have to work, but that doesn't mesh with how most people treat money.

How many people deliberately underemploy themselves just to have more free time, even if they could easily be making more money? Very few. And I'd wager that most in that category have lucrative enough careers that their "underemployed" is still making most people's normal income

UBI is a separate concern from copyright being a dumb way of rewarding intellectual property.

1. Everyone should get UBI to reduce poverty and houselessness.

2. And separately, artists should get paid for their work, when it's valuable, regardless of whether or not UBI is in place.

• And sometimes that value is immediately recognized at the time by the masses and can be measured in clicks and streams.

• Sometimes it's only recognized by professional contemporaries and critics in how it influences the industry.

• Sometimes it's not recognized until long after them and their contemporaries are dead.

• Given computers and the internet, there is no technical reason that every single individual on the planet couldn't have access to all digital art at all times.

All of these things can be true, and their sum total makes copyright look like an asinine system for rewarding artists. It's literally spending billions of dollars and countless countless useless hours in business deals, legal arguments, and software drm and walled gardens, all just to create a system of artificial scarcity, when all of those billions could instead be paying people to do literally anything else, including producing art.

Hell, paying all those lawyers 80k a year to produce shitty art and live a comfortable life would be a better use of societal resources then paying them 280k a year to deprive people of access to it.

you can sell your work without resorting to government enforced Monopoly.

It's a good argument because artificially constraining the supply to simulate "monetary value" destroys most of the actual value it could have by being available to everyone. The "protection" is a harmful kludge that only has to exist because we insist on making everyone measure their value with the market.

That typically sells better than art that isn't made of literal shit.

You mean like Tracy Emin's bed? It gets featured in the Tate Modern of London.