> Woah, hang on there buddy. Without the artistic contribution you wouldn’t have the shared experience or history.

That's just nonsense. Sure you would still have shared experience and history: not all experiences are manufactured, and not all manufactured experiences are owned, and not all art is made for profit.

Even without any copyright at all and without any incentive to produce art at all, people would still produce art, because it's fun, and perhaps for other reasons. By number, most musicians are hobbyists and never get paid a dime; lots of people make and play music just as social thing and as part of growing up. The idea that music needs to be a job, and beyond that a job beyond the actual performing art itself is clearly incorrect: evidence: every single human culture in history, which have all made art and music, well before copyright was ever a thing. Even today, despite the huge hurdle that copyright poses, communites create pretty impressive stuff even though their members never even consider the fact that some of their contributions are potentially copyrightable, and the fact that it's hopeless to figure out who owns what in a process like that.

If you think that the only shared experiences worth having are those intentionally created by people being paid, you have a really, really distorted view of humanity. Have you never just had fun with a bunch of friends or family, and created something in the process? Seriously??

> > Don't forget that the aim is to help society, not to reward artists.

> Errrrrrr. What? No. Copyright law is designed to protect the rightsholders first of all.

Well, this depends at least slightly on where you're from. In the US, the constitution explicitly states that congress may enact a limited duration of exclusivity for the purpose not of protecting rightsholders, but to promote "science and useful arts". It would likely be unconstitutional for congress to limit transmission of ideas without constitutional amendment for the purpose of protection of rightsholders, but IANAL. In any case this wasn't articulated as clearly in earlier texts in e.g. england, but I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that it likely played a part there too; if the aim were merely to keep the destitute off the streets, why single out authors like that? Because creation is valuable. Protecting rightsholders is a means to an end; not the actual aim of copyright. You might even say it's a cost, not a benefit: you're taking people's rights away, and there better be a good reason for that.

> Also, this type of model assumes EVERYTHING can be measured online.

I intentionally mentioned a bunch of different models, some of which do not assume that, e.g. the annual auction system. I'm positive thee are dozens of other (better) systems too, I just thought of those on a whim: the point isn't to promote any specific alternative but to emphasize that there are alternatives and they're not even hard to think of. But even the citation system does not require everything to be online, simply to be accounted for. You buy the vinyl you're worried about today, in most places you pay sales tax and thus in some sense formalize the sale. Formalizing the usage is conceivable. Would that be perfect? No. But copyright only "works" when nothing can be copied without permission, yet, that's quite possible nowaways. The feasibility of copyright is almost certainly one of the worst of all of these approaches, particularly because copyright introduces the dichotomy of consumer and producer, and puts them in opposition. And that makes it attractive to cheat. Also, we do live in a world with ever more pervasive automation. It would be inefficient not to leverage that where it's useful to do so.

As to your question on what's a remix: either define it, or consider all usages to be derived works needing a mandatory license. That's only a problem with copyright because copyrightholders have users over a barrel; with mandatory licensing and fixed prices a remixer would know what they're getting into beforehand (and might choose to use older, cheaper samples, or use less of the sample or whatever). But what's not going to happen is that it turns into the quagmire is is now, because there's no exclusivity. It's even conceivable you could use the notion of entropy modern signal prcessing in dealing with what's a remix; that mathematical tool simply didn't exist back then! (Again, the options are legion, which is the point...)