>>719799948
>loss of revenue
If said revenue is obtained in an illicit manner, loss of that revenue might actually be a good thing.
Regardless, yes, if we ripped out the present system, it would lead to a loss of revenue; primarily, it would lead to massive revenue loss for media companies milking an IP they didn't have a part in creating, and loss of wages for the people they employ (the creators, 9 times out of 10, sell their rights to the company as part of their contract). Also loss of royalties for people in some situations, depending on their contract
>>719799948
. However, there are already ecosystems in place where copyright effectively doesn't exist, for example, independent artists, youtubers, podcasts, substacks, etc. who are too poor to sue people or file DMCA claims, whose revenue is, largely, not tied to people seeing what they make. Rather it's voluntary donations from patrons who enjoy their work and want to see more. A game with no DRM from GoG or itch.io is still capable of making money if people think it's worth putting money into, even if they can just get a free copy from somewhere else. There is commercial software, profitable commercial software that is open source. Maybe it's not as profitable for companies who cant price gouge customers and enforce an artificial monopoly on ideas, but I thought companies solely chasing profit was bad?
