The subject is copyrights, not patents. You make a mockery of the nature and intent of copyright law which simply prohibits your use of other’s inventions to MAKE MONEY FOR YOURSELF. Use it to your heart’s content. But don’t profit from it unless you share those profits (usually in a small percentage) with the creator.
And your argument for giving less protection to the creative efforts of inventors or mathematicians than to those of authors and artists is what? Your principle of not making a profit without sharing it with the original creator seems very broad. How are you limiting it to art, and excluding mathematics and technology?
If someone makes a profit by applying a mathematical theorem, why do you claim the mathematician who first proved it shouldn’t get a cut, but if someone makes a profit by showing a new Mickey Mouse cartoon, Disney Corp. needs to be paid?
It is also does not support the current state of copyright law: “with the creator” doesn’t cover, for instance, Henry Holt and Co. demanding royalties for the work of a decades-dead poet for use of his work as song lyrics, or even Mickey Mouse — Walt Disney is dead, he can’t get a share of the profits from the new, very funny, Mickey Mouse movie — and DMCA take-down notices affect folks who aren’t trying to make a dime from their remix of corporately held art.
I also note you ignored the last two paragraphs of my post, which were specific to copyright.