>who says that this future money has to be enforced by copyright laws

I certainly didn't. I don't think there's anyone who says that copyright laws make it illegal to commission an artist.

> Even this incentive wouldn't be killed if there were no copyright laws

Yes, there are at least three systems (patron, tip jar, and copyright monopoly) to make money as a writer or artist.

> I don't think there's anyone who says that copyright laws make it illegal to commission an artist.

But it makes it illegal not to give money to the copyright holder - quite a kind of (data) highway robbery.

No one is forcing you to read their works in the first place.

Nor is your example correct. The first sale doctrine still applies. If you own a legal copy then you do not need to give money to the copyright holder to sell the copy. If someone else has a copy, then you can buy it without sending any money to the copyright holder.

Granted, we appear to have collectively and foolishly decided to reflexively click on "I agree", and switch to on-line rentals instead of actual purchases, making this harder. But it is only illegal if you make a copy. So don't do that. Then there's no (data) highway robbery. Problem solved!

> But it is only illegal if you make a copy. So don't do that.

So in other words you argue against free speech (creating a copy) and pro censorship. Writing texts that obey the censorship laws (or in western countries copyright laws) is illegal about nowhere.

Wow. Really? Be sure to tell Stallman that the Free Software Foundation, based as it is on strong copyright, is really against free speech and is pro censorship.

First: The FSF just uses copyright as a means to an end. They would rather wish that their four freedoms were part of the law.

Second: I'm no advocate of the FSF way. For some reasons I think that the idea that one has to share the source code is dubious (among these reasons: what, for example, if I share the source code but obfuscate it; or if I change the source code so that it from now on is generated from some metacode: Do I have to share source code that is on the same level as the original one or do I have to share the metacode?). Instead in my opinion the community should develop much better methods of reverse engineering so that sharing the source code will not make much of a difference anymore. So in this sense the way to go is some kind of BSD-like license which also allows universal reverse engineering of built binaries. Such a license would also work if there were no/very weak copyright laws (since one can always do this, it just might be that the laws disallow it) in opposite the the GPL/AGPL.

Why do you continue to talk to me, a known censor and oppressor of free speech?

As for the FSF way, you aren't forced to share the code. That's one of the four freedoms you mentioned. It's only when you distribute something based on the code where you are forced (by the horrid anti-free speech Stallman) to also include the code through one of several mechanism.

If you do decide to distribute it, and your software incorporates someone else's work under the GPL, then there's already a clause which prohibits you from obfuscating the code. ("The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it".) It's in v2 and v3.

Disassemblers are a thing. They are quite good these days. Let's assume perfect reverse engineering. Even with source code it's hard to reverse-engineer how a large project works.

Though not perfect. No one had yet reverse engineered Skype.

> universal reverse engineering of built binaries

Your complaints seems to be with contract law, not copyright law. I believe US and EU copyright already allows you to reverse engineer built binaries, with some restriction.

The problem is that people voluntarily agree to licenses which restrict that right.