... Nothing you wrote addresses any of the concerns/criticisms that I've levied in return. There's nothing additional to read and you've failed to furnish more. Talk about bad faith discussions. You're response is literally "go google it"... "go read it again", same bullshit hand-wavy nonsense.

1. You cannot have a central repository and require people to enter ALL their digital works into it. This violates a number of freedoms.
2. You cannot maintain such a repository without funding, and a fuckton of it.
3. You cannot enforce that companies must use such a repository.
4. Even if you did... stolen materials would appear outside of repository and cannot be contained regardless. and arugably having this central repo would make it easier to steal (whether just outright theft, or theft of attribution).
5. Even if you did. And a book got 100,000 downloads, how do you determine what value they get? What if the writer determines that's unreasonable?
6. How does a creative person in any form make money on this system?
7. This doesn't stop at just "creative" works right? This must include things like code and other digital works right? Oh shit, I just recorded a vlog on my phone. Gotta upload it to your magic repository!
8. How is malicious use of that central repo mitigated? Remember... you don't want a middleman taking anything.

You seem to think that you can do ANY of this without some form of DRM and copyright. Remember, you stated

we have all the tools we need to build a middle man free service

While at the same time outlining a literal middleman service as your standard. If a writer/artist/whatever wanted to self-publish. Nothing stops them. Open a website with magento, woocommerce, Prestashop... whatever you want. And sell it for whatever you think is fair. That would be the best case instance to cut out the middleman. This doesn't mean you can just strip a person of their rights to their works just because it's "free" to make duplicates of it. It's wild that you start the premise with that requirement from the get go, going down the premise proves that it wouldn't work, which was most of the point of my comments. But you seem wildly disinterested in actually discussing anything. You're nearly as bad as the people who claim communism works... but we just never saw true communism. (which is just as bad as people who claim any absolute system works... when we've never seen it work at all).

and the only way that stories and songs and ideas were passed on was through chains of people copying and retelling them.

From your original comment. There's a difference in rights to the works vs rights to the performance/recording. And further there's a difference between "personal" and "commercial" usages. The reason those stories and songs are passed down is because personal use is effectively unenforceable (and retelling in your own words would be what we call "fair use"). In your world, you'd make it also unenforceable for commercial usages as well.