A couple of points. First, laws around copyrights were not created to help people make money out of their creations. This is one of the lies propagated by people who use the phrase "intellectual property" as if it means something. They were created to encourage authors (in the broader sense of the word which includes people who write, draw, compose music etc) to publish their work, rather than circulating it privately, which in a pre-internet society meant the public would never get to see it. In order to get the carrot of the copyright protection, the author had to accept their work eventually entering the public domain. In other words, copyright laws were created to serve the *public good*, not private profit.
Secondly, since the rise of mass publishing, authors have made less money from their work than executives, lawyers, and the rest of the army of intermediaries who make up the publishing industries. The internet as it stands offers authors the same opportunity to make money that the publishing industries do. With some creative design, it could offer them an even better opportunity. Crowdfunding sites like PledgeMe.co.nz are even now offering new opportunities to authors to fund the costs of self-publishing, and there is huge potential in tools like BitCoin/ Freecoin to allow audiences to make donations during downloads.
Implications of points one and two; since increased restriction of copying does not serve the public good (the original goal of copyright law), and since copyright has not helped authors make money, it follows that allowing free distribution (which clearly does serve the public good) can do no financial harm to authors, and has in a number of cases been financially beneficial to them. CreativeCommons published a book called The Power of Open with many case studies illustrating this:http://thepowerofopen.org/
Thirdly, the deeper question lurking beneath the debate around copyright is; 'do we as a society want to support people to specialize in artistic/ design/ intellectual work' which, unlike farming or manufacturing, doesn't easily translate into product for which money can be charged at the point of use or distribution. Perhaps we don't. Perhaps the internet and crowdsourcing will make being an artist or programmer or scientist for a living as absurd as breathing for a living. I think not though. Just because recipes are freely available and everyone can learn to cook, society still has a place for specialist chefs and all manner of other paid jobs in food prep.
The question then becomes; 'since society wants specialist artists/ designers/ intellectual workers, how is it going to support them?' The usual method at this point in history is national currencies (what most people think of when they say 'money'), but many commentators like Nicole Foss of AutomaticEarth believe that these currencies will not last because their value is pegged to an economy based on fossil fuels (especially oil, whose global extraction peaked in 2005/06). Other more creative possibilities are emerging. Timebanks are getting up and running around the country that allow people to pay creative specialists in time credits:http://timebank.org.nz/locate
Finally, this whole question ties into much deeper questions about the nature of money, and why 1% of the global population seems to have 99% of it, and thus control 99% of decision-making about the use of the world's resources. Charles Eisenstein's book 'Sacred Economics' makes some salient points around these issues, and is available under a CC-NC-SA license:http://www.realitysandwich.com/homepage ... _economics