>However a content creator should also have the right to be restrictive, to say that only people that pay $1000 for a license can access the content, or that another company can sell access in return for $1000.
Why? That is not a right in the US the same way that free religious expression is a right. Copyright was left to Congress to define however they liked, later shaped by corporate interests and international agreements.
Regarding the morality of copyright: music, movies, books and so on are all part of our culture, and I find it reprehensible that you want to limit the sharing of our culture for 100 years at a time [1].
[1] Current copyright terms in the US are mostly life of the creator + 70 years, or 95 years for corporate works. 100 years is a conservative average.
Culture drives creative works, and creative works drive culture. It's harmful to the progress of civilization to limit the use of works too severely.
That said, I can't sleep in, eat, or drive good feels, so I'd like to derive benefit from what I create, at least while I'm alive. Unless a post-scarcity world happens in my lifetime, in which case I'll offer up all my work with minimal restrictions.
Why? That is not a right in the US the same way that free religious expression is a right. Copyright was left to Congress to define however they liked, later shaped by corporate interests and international agreements.
Regarding the morality of copyright: music, movies, books and so on are all part of our culture, and I find it reprehensible that you want to limit the sharing of our culture for 100 years at a time [1].
[1] Current copyright terms in the US are mostly life of the creator + 70 years, or 95 years for corporate works. 100 years is a conservative average.