It seems to me you were supporting the op when he said
>It could be nice if companies would be forced to set up collective workers representation entities when they reach a certain numbers of employees, where I am the limit is of 50 employees, then you must have a collective representation
So if that was the case, how can I work for a large company without such workers representation?
>There would be no avenue at all for someone to make money on the actual content.
Except this is trivially disprovable by simply looking at YouTube.
Copyright plays essentially zero role in the business models of the vast majority of sucessful youtubers, and it is arguably a platform that is far more sucessful than traditional media at producing high quality, relevant content.
Sure, if you get rid of copyright some business models will no longer be possible... but some new business models will now be viable.
You wouldn't argue "we have to protect the baby crushing machine industry because if we don't then the baby crushers won't have a job", so why are you making that argument for copyright?
That seems to indicate to me that the original work is actually not under copyright, since if it is the only method of achieving such an image in such a style, then there is no originality to be copyrighted.
All these complaints that productivity growth has been matched by salary growth always seems to ignore that most of the productivity gains have been the result of capital expenditure, not of workers being better at their jobs.
>It could be nice if companies would be forced to set up collective workers representation entities when they reach a certain numbers of employees, where I am the limit is of 50 employees, then you must have a collective representation
So if that was the case, how can I work for a large company without such workers representation?