You’re suggesting copyright is obsolete because technical means of protecting content are so easy to circumvent.
That’s absurd, considering laws protecting rights that are easily protected by, for example, physical means are entirely unnecessary.
The only reason we have laws against burglary is to allow us the benefits of not living in a personal fortress. To turn this around and deny anyone going out in public without a personal protection detail the benefit of laws against being robbed or raped is indistinguishable from just scrapping all criminal law.
The other, more common and less interesting (but equally wrong), assumption you’re making is that there is some secret business model that thousands of publications and journalists have somehow missed to see. Or, alternatively, the strange situation of gleefully enjoying the decline of journalism, coming up with all sorts of accusations to deny that their work has any value for you or society, while simultaneously spending 8+ hours these days reading their work.
That’s absurd, considering laws protecting rights that are easily protected by, for example, physical means are entirely unnecessary.
The only reason we have laws against burglary is to allow us the benefits of not living in a personal fortress. To turn this around and deny anyone going out in public without a personal protection detail the benefit of laws against being robbed or raped is indistinguishable from just scrapping all criminal law.
The other, more common and less interesting (but equally wrong), assumption you’re making is that there is some secret business model that thousands of publications and journalists have somehow missed to see. Or, alternatively, the strange situation of gleefully enjoying the decline of journalism, coming up with all sorts of accusations to deny that their work has any value for you or society, while simultaneously spending 8+ hours these days reading their work.