Do copyright laws limit creativity or reward it? Would society function better without such rules and regulations?

It is supposed by many that copyright laws may be counterproductive and could hinder creative endeavour; however, personally, I disagree with this idea and opine strongly that the protection of intellectual property is crucial to a well-functioning society, and, in fact, encourages the production of further works by providing a framework within which innovators may be adequately rewarded for their efforts. Copyright regulations may prevent people from expanding on existing ideas, but a key purpose of such rules is to ensure that new ideas are sufficiently original to warrant financial reward. It is unlikely that members of the public could discern an original piece from a fraud, and so the support of the courts is necessary in order to uphold standards of originality. The US federal government states, for instance, that such laws exist to stimulate artistic creativity for the general public good, and to ensure reasonable return to authors and inventors. Through this process, the law establishes incentives for producing new works, which in turn encourages learning, progress, and development. Without such regulations, individuals would be free to copy another’s work. As mentioned above, the general public cannot reasonably be expected to defend authenticity, and so would-be fraudsters may receive a financial reward comparable to that of the originator. Resultantly, in countries with substandard protections for artists, for example, creative output is consistently and considerably lower than that of nations with strong intellectual property regulations since the genuine owner of the work is afforded little protection or reward. If we accept that more creative output is good for society, then copyright law can be taken as the same. To conclude, copyright regulations are an essential tool for the promotion of creativity, and society tends to function better with their enforcement.