honestly, having given it much thought, i don't think this is actually the case.
all i can say in a short comment on my reasoning is:
1. works of art done for love or the need to share are peices of content probably worth spending very valuable time on
2. works of art created for money are inevitably optimising for wasting your life - films and books are dragged out to series that largely go no where, vacuous music and media is created in the hope of getting you to spend money, not expanding your mind and adding to the value of society
3. historically this doesn't really seem to have been an issue. if you are good you can make money out of commissions and guest appearances or signed copies etc. this is not perfect, but it certainly makes it more likely money will go to the creator rather than a distributor. - note also the current system is far from perfect and many creators suffer from its failures today
4. nothing is done in isolation: inevitably you created your thing based on what you learned from others and opportunities society gave you.. but most importantly the value comes from other people need, NOT your creation - ability to write code is not valuable, removing someones problem is.
5. controlling and restricting the ability for other to create as they are not creating how some right holder wants seems drastically counter productive and greatly slows progress and de-motivates people who could be adding to society.
6. if we got better about respecting what others had contributed to our ideas (as we felt less need to hoard them) then overall i think people would be worried less when its someone else take on their idea that "makes it big". if thre was less ot be gained financially, it would remove incentives for deceit.
i suppose in summary, i think that you should create out of love and because you think that thing needs creating. if all "for profit" inventions and art were to vanish from existence, i don't actually think we would be missing much. there is no race we are trying to win with progress and there is no final state to get to.
all i can say in a short comment on my reasoning is: 1. works of art done for love or the need to share are peices of content probably worth spending very valuable time on 2. works of art created for money are inevitably optimising for wasting your life - films and books are dragged out to series that largely go no where, vacuous music and media is created in the hope of getting you to spend money, not expanding your mind and adding to the value of society 3. historically this doesn't really seem to have been an issue. if you are good you can make money out of commissions and guest appearances or signed copies etc. this is not perfect, but it certainly makes it more likely money will go to the creator rather than a distributor. - note also the current system is far from perfect and many creators suffer from its failures today 4. nothing is done in isolation: inevitably you created your thing based on what you learned from others and opportunities society gave you.. but most importantly the value comes from other people need, NOT your creation - ability to write code is not valuable, removing someones problem is. 5. controlling and restricting the ability for other to create as they are not creating how some right holder wants seems drastically counter productive and greatly slows progress and de-motivates people who could be adding to society. 6. if we got better about respecting what others had contributed to our ideas (as we felt less need to hoard them) then overall i think people would be worried less when its someone else take on their idea that "makes it big". if thre was less ot be gained financially, it would remove incentives for deceit.
i suppose in summary, i think that you should create out of love and because you think that thing needs creating. if all "for profit" inventions and art were to vanish from existence, i don't actually think we would be missing much. there is no race we are trying to win with progress and there is no final state to get to.