Moreover, Toady gets paid from the work he does, in the form of donations
Nothing about voluntary donations contradicts anything I'm promoting. I'm arguing againat copyright.
Those structures create different kinds of art than a single person working on their own vision, and they aren't prohibited by the existence of copyright or other IP law, so I'm not really sure how they're relevant.
What's so special about other forms that you believe they necessarily couldn't be constructed without copyright?
Let me try to break down my position.
I assert that:
1) Copyright is undesireable because copyright enforcement involves coersion and force. Saying that it's "nice" for people who provide things for us to benefit from doing so is is all well and good, but when you start fining people and throwing them in jail for benefitting without paying for that benefit...that becomes an imposition on free will, which is something I prefer to avoid.
2) The "bad" that copyright in theory seeks to prevent isn't really bad. Copying is not stealing because it doesn't take something away from somebody. If you have a bicycle and I take your bicycle, you now no longer have a bicycle. If you make a song, and I copy the song...you still have the song. I haven't taken anything away from you. And, in case anyone wants to go there...yes, if I could push a button and "copy" your bike via a star-trek replicator or something, that wouldn't be "stealing" either.
3) I am not comfortable with the idea that the person who brings something into the world is entitled to
prevent others from having it. It seems reasonable to me to suggest that they're not obligated to provide it to others...but to me, suggesting that they're entitled to
stop others from having it just because they brought it into the world...that's just not how I would want to run a society.
For example, imagine the first human to discover fire. What if the social convention at the time had been that, since he discovered it...nobody else could have it without his permission. And if anyone watched what he did and "copied" the method, third parties would came and take it away and hurt them unless they gave the number of rocks or seashells that the guy who discovered it wants in exchange for his permission to have fire.
When I describe it that way it's obvious how ridiculous that is, right? But that's what copyright is. If you make a song, or a game or whatever...somehow this entitles you to stop others from reproducing it, and if they do...even though they haven't taken it from you...you're now allowed to have somebody else steal money from them and/or throw them in jail for you.
Why does anyone think a society that works that way makes sense?
When you people imply things like that it's more important for you to have games like Skyrim than it is to live in a world where people don't kick down your door and throw you in jail if you don't give people money...I...all I can say is that your worldview and mine are not entirely compatible.