>pharma companies monopolize on medication and restrict access to it thanks to intellectual property
>"I disagree, people dying because they can't access the medication they need is an arbitrary unimportant scenario, have you thought about my art?"
alright then.
Even on the subject of art in particular, this argument is flawed and it's a great illustration of the important differences between the terms "working class" and "proletariat".
Proletarian artists do not "retain their creations" or own their own IP. Whether as full-time employees, part-time contractors, or freelancers working for commission, it is the person paying them who gets to own what they create while on the job. They sell their labor power and they receive a wage in return. They do not receive ownership of profit-generating private property, intellectual or otherwise.
The "indie artist" who works to create their own IP, their own brand, and to market and sell it, certainly at least starts out as someone working very hard for very little money. They often acquire the initial funds for their projects through wage labor. Culturally, such a person might self-identify as "working class", live a working class lifestyle, and socialize with other working class people. But importantly, what they are doing is no different from any entrepreneur or small business startup. They are working to create capital, to create a piece of property that they privately own and can exploit to generate profit for themselves.
An artist who owns their own IP and intends to make a living via said ownership has a petit-bourgeois relationship towards intellectual property, not a proletarian one, no matter how hard they work or how poor they are. They inevitably depend on the labor of others in order to generate profit from their IP, even if only indirectly.
This is why the person in the screenshot is so concerned with copies "devaluing" art: the value of the art is being defined here as the market price the artist can receive upon sale, something which can only generate a profit if the owner either has a means of employing the labor of others to create it (the aforementioned "wealthy industrialists") or has a means of enforcing artificial scarcity of the artwork (the bourgeois intellectual property enforcement regime).
Actual proletarian artists have no reason to be concerned with copies "devaluing" art, because their wages are not determined by how many copies of their work are created and they already expect their employers to create as many copies as they like once the work is finished. They are not selling their art, they are selling their ability to make art, their labor power.
