>>10130928>But more minor than the hand scupted ones.Again, it's funny to me that you think that; and again, the differences would be negligible.
>I'm arguing that things made by hand aren't replicatable and unique thus have high value. This is just flat out untrue; artists have been making copies of not only their own work, but other artists, for hundreds of years, nothing is unreplicable, the only barrier is time and skill.
>What?!Fine art is a heavily commercial market; you literally can't even buy in if you aren't in the right circles, and it's a pretty open secret that the whole thing is one big tax dodge. Just because things aren't replicated(which they are, btw) doesn't make them eligible for the fine art scene. Fine art is as much a product as any other art, it's just sold to a different crowd.
>Disney wouldn't be able to do shitIf you honestly believe a massive company like Disney would be absolutely paralyzed if IP laws didn't exist, you're retarded; they take advantage of them, yes, but if they didn't exist Disney could literally undercut everyone and anyone and make copies of anything and own the entire market, which is the goal of all big companies.
>Which is still mopolyIn the STRICTEST sense, but the law doesn't recognize it as such and neither will I. By the by, IP law exists for econimic reasons, as it helps prevent monopolies and market stagnation. IP law goes FAR beyond just art and artists, too.
>easy to copy "art" isn't.Art has always been copyable, and being able to be copied easily has never been a barrier to cultural relevance: see also, Norman Rockwell.
>>10130940>Yes, those laws also hurts property rights,Ok, and? Your rights(also intangible, i might add), are restricted everywhere you go and aren't actually anything but a government recognized privilege. You don't have the right to do whatever you want, and that's never going to change.
