Even if everything else you'd said was true - your conclusion does not follow. A system in which the state enforces prevention of copying is an anathema and must be dismantled. The access of authors to copy-rent incoming does not justify its existence.
> The copyright is the only source of income to authors outside of the academic world.
That's not true, in two aspects. First, there are multiple other potential sources of income for authors of popular works. Second, most authors of most works don't make money off of the copyright anyway, as not very many people/organizations pay for copies.
> And generally, authors should have a say about the use of their work.
I disagree. Just like poets don't have a say about the use of their poems, so should the case be about articles, books, software, composed music etc.
> as long as it serves the author, not to be stolen by the publisher
IIANM, most copy-rent money goes to publishers, not authors.
Even if everything else you'd said was true - your conclusion does not follow. A system in which the state enforces prevention of copying is an anathema and must be dismantled. The access of authors to copy-rent incoming does not justify its existence.
> The copyright is the only source of income to authors outside of the academic world.
That's not true, in two aspects. First, there are multiple other potential sources of income for authors of popular works. Second, most authors of most works don't make money off of the copyright anyway, as not very many people/organizations pay for copies.
> And generally, authors should have a say about the use of their work.
I disagree. Just like poets don't have a say about the use of their poems, so should the case be about articles, books, software, composed music etc.
> as long as it serves the author, not to be stolen by the publisher
IIANM, most copy-rent money goes to publishers, not authors.