In my opinion art is not for money, and when it becomes for it, art is not real. Copyright transform artistic endeavors into products, into commodities. Artists of new age will make a living through their concerts or exhibitions (who said that it is normal artists to earn so much money?) or they will create art just because they want to express themselves and then share their creations with the commons.

PS: Being myself an artist I have deeply realised the truth of my fore mentioned allegations: once somebody asked me to write some songs for making money from them, and when I entered the process of creating I reached a point where I started hating my art.

In fact, my own research on the history of music (which spans decades) suggests that copyright initially started because of all the artists that got screwed in the 50s and 60s. However, in those days, the labels were sometimes run by artists, so as label owners and publishers, they were hoping to protect themselves. But copyright does also protect the individual, or is supposed to – which especially now on the Internet is important, with all the bloggers, etc., trying to make a living online.

Not that copyright is going to succeed on the Internet [I think cyberpunk author Bruce Gibson said that in a novel], but that doesn’t mean it isn’t intended to protect individuals.