There is definitely a distinction. But that distinction is not relevant to the topic of this thread.
Probably both.
Lots of people want to read books filtered by a publishing company. Libraries only buy books from publishers.
In case you think I’m being biased, my wife has been a judge for and indie book awards contest for a few years now, so we get box loads of books, most self published. These are books whose authors think are good enough to pay to enter the contest. Some are good, but most are dreadful. Like 80% at least.
I believe you. I’ve read a few self-published science fiction or alternate history books. I’m not looking for great literature but I can see the drop-off from books in the same genres that have been released through a publisher.
Here’s just one, but she’s not the only one. I’ve heard several critics re-evaluate Titanic in a positive light.
Have you ever listened to “Wellington’s Victory” by Beethoven. Total dreck. It was extremely popular, far more so than say his late string quartets. Some people picked dreck over quality even 200 years ago, and probably for a lot longer than that. Time filters out the dreck.
Absolute artistic quality is about the same as absolute morality - it doesn’t exist.
But doesn’t that contradict your whole premise? You said to own an idea and have exclusive control over its use. If I am the first to have the idea of “cat videos on the internet” then any narrowing of that idea that allows any other person to put a cat video on the internet is a contradiction to your definition.
I’m choosing to take this as a serious post.
I have spoken several times about the use of an idea. This applies to the person who originates the idea as well. By expressing the idea in some form, they are both using it and establishing a claim to its ownership.
I feel the legal system recognizes this principle and is justified in doing so. It’s not enough to simply claim you had an idea. You have to demonstrate you used it in some manner, even if it’s just writing it down.
I am being serious. I guess I don’t understand what you mean by “own an idea and have exclusive control of its use”. Under your definition of IP, once I have an idea would I have exclusive control of ALL uses emanating from it? Or would I only control uses I develop from the idea? If so doesn’t someone using my idea for another use contradict your definition?
For example, I am the first to have the idea of “cat videos on the internet”. Under your definition what exactly would I have exclusive control of?
I wrote in the OP how there’s a balance at work between the exclusive use of an idea by its creator and the free use of an idea by everyone else. And I pointed out the advantages and disadvantages of both.
I feel there would be a major disadvantage to society if we adopted the principle you’ve described. If people could claim exclusive ownership of a broad category of ideas then this would have a stifling effect on the creativity of other people. So society, through the legal system, defines ideas to reasonably narrow standard.
An idea like “cat videos on the internet” is far too broad an idea to be owned by one person for their exclusive use. So it is available for free use by everyone.
Oh, get over yourself and your ‘precious’ characters. Would you vote for a proposition that outlawed satire and parody? Since those are things that “mess with my characters”. Are you the type of busybody that would want to go after not-for-profit fan fiction sites or authors? Of course you might not since doing so may be largely impractical but based on what you wright I bet you would love to come down on their asses, if it was easy and effective to do so (this is of course assuming they in fact do write fan fic of your stories). Most people that go after not-for-profit fan fiction are supremely arrogant and think way too highly of their stories. It’s a different matter when someone tries to profit of their work, which demonstrates how it largely does come down to money for most people.
And I don’t understand how the ‘sacredness’ of your art, its highly personal aspect and it being a “part of you”, should suddenly end when you die. These are immutable aspects that last for eternity. Based on these, you should be trying advocate for laws that guarantee your works are never messed with, after all, based on these ideas, how can you say you truly value them if you don’t? It’s like if a mother told their suicidal child to at least wait until she (the mother) has died before offing themselves. A truly supportive and unselfish mother would not want their child’s life to be so contingent on their own, and based on this logic neither should an artist want the ‘sacredness’ of their art to be contingent on whether they are alive or not. I of course think the whole notion is ridiculous since works of art are not anywhere near analogous to your children. Even so, there does come a point where you have to set your children free.
Another point would be that if people lived much longer then they do now, the idea of copyright being the life of the author (plus some additional number of years) is easily demonstrated to be untenable, unless you believe copyright should in fact last forever or at least, for example, thousands of years if in the future people can on average live that long. How long should copyright last when or if in the future a person is expected to live for such a length of time?
So, IMO, the only reasonable argument for copyright to last for as long as it does should be done purely on utilitarian grounds. But the idea that copyright law is even partially justified to prevent old people from becoming “destitute” is fucking laughable. The vast vast majority of old destitute people exist not because of the lack of sufficiently strenuous and lengthy copyright but because of lack of social safety nets. The solution is properly funded long term care and support services so that even if, for instance, someone sells their own copyright for cheap due to poor judgment they don’t fucking starve to death .
Copyright law should only be as long as it can be demonstrated to produce appropriate intensives incentives for high(er) quality work balanced on the benefits of not being able to produce direct derivatives of such work, not based vague notions of ‘sacredness’, since no work is, in fact, sacred. Online memes are a good testament to this, or do you want to go after those too? If copyright was as strenuously applied as you seem to want it to be, a mind bogglingly amount of internet content would not exist, I imagine.
Given that “sacredness” is your word and not mine, and this is unnecessarily personalized, I’m not going to respond to this straw man.
Way to get hung up on a single word and not address any of the actual arguments but okay 
‘Precious’ is also not a word you used but you did not single that one out when I used it.
When you say that your works “are a part of me, an expression of my individual thoughts, beliefs, personality, and experience”, that is what I mean when called them ‘scared’, as in, scared to you, something that you object to anyone ‘fucking’ with. Or you can define what you mean by “fucking” when you object to people doing it to your characters. Maybe it’s limited to Rule34? 
But since you object to that word then feel free to replace it with ‘precious’ or something else that describes it adequately. My apollogies.
…that was barely an argument. It was much closer to a rant. It certainly is almost all nothing but your opinion. And you are entitled to your opinion, of course, but there really isn’t anything there for anybody to rebut.
How about thought experiment that if people’s average life expectancy is thousands of years, the idea of certain characters not being part of the public domain also for thousands of years just because the creator says so? This shows that the idea that what a person “feels” about their work is nowhere near enough to ascertain how long a copyright should actually last, especially if they were to live for thousands of years. A person can, in principle, feel just as strongly about their characters not being ‘fucked’ with for any number of years, whether that is 70 or 7000. Thus, the rights of a work ‘not being fucked with’ can at best be a very minor factor when considering copyright, IMO. But if this is simply an opinion then tell me what objective criteria should be used in determining how long copyright lasts in a potential future scenario where people are effectively unaging (if we ever got to that point, obviously).
And you claiming it was a ‘just’ rant is also your opinion, one which I don’t share.
Oh and this part of my post
was in response to this one
I think it’s a pretty good argument. Why isn’t it? Are all my arguments just opinions? Can you tell me exactly which of my arguments are just opinions and which aren’t so I can improve my argumentation in the future?
…how about we not?
Why would I want to debate a point that nobody in this thread has advocated for, that nobody in this thread actually wants? What would be the point of that?
Obviously.
I’m sure you do.
Why do you think it is?
What is the correct amount of money old people should be allowed to earn off their creative endeavors? Can you quantify that?
I live in a country that has strong social safety nets, properly funded long term care and support services that will look after me if I happened to end up destitute.
But I’d rather just not end up destitute.
The intellectual property right laws where I live allow me to make a modest profit from my work, allows me to keep other people employed, and when I retire I’ll be able to live relatively comfortably. Do you want to change that situation? If you did, what system would you replace it with, and how would you convince me to support it?
The point was that in a society like that, you can’t end up destitute (unless they go through the cracks or something, but that is beside the point), unless you claim people who live in long term care homes are destitute, something that I don’t think.
…you can have strong social safety nets, properly funded long term care and support services and still end up destitute. What you really mean is a utopian fantasy, in other words another fantastical thought experiment, which I have zero interest in indulging you with.
In the real world the situation I described exists. So where do we go from there? What is the correct amount of money as an old person am I allowed to make? Do you want to change the current situation? What system do you want to replace it, and how do you intend to convince me to support it?
People can be destitute and be taken care of by the state in long term care homes: yes, this is a thing that happens in the real world in places with social safety nets.