Equating copyright of a story to market monopolies? Whut?
Uh, yes? Copyright is literally "authors get a legal monopoly on distributing their work, in order to aid monetisation".
I have a Patreon that I use to fund video essays that I research? Nothing stopping other people from taking my video essays and uploading them to their YouTube channel to make revenue from ads. Books I wrote can now be published by other parties and sold in bookstores. Digital storefronts can put up copies of my book for "pay what you want." Etc.
You and
@joesmith1999 are basically having the same general problem: you're trying to apply the conventions and business models of a world used to copyright to a world without copyright, noticing that they wouldn't work, and then saying that this is clearly unjust.
There are alternative business models that do not require copyright, and the incentives in a world without copyright are extremely different such that the exploitation you envision wouldn't work.
In order:
1) YouTube doesn't pay uploaders any significant amount of money in a copyright-free world. It certainly doesn't pay an ongoing percentage of ad revenue. Hence, this exploitation fails to get any more money than "a nominal finder's fee for doing the upload". Your Patreon quite likely does
not fully fail, because people are paying for the videos'
existence and only Chastity can make
new Chastity videos (yes, there's a tragedy-of-the-commons problem, but it's not all that big).
2) They can manufacture physical books and sell them... but the cost of a book in a world without copyright is cost of production plus a tiny profit margin, due to competition. They get a reasonable price for the materials and for physically running a printing press (which
is useful, if less glamorous than the idea side), and that's all.
3) They put up copies of your book for "pay what you want"... and get at best a fraction of a cent per download, because requiring more gets them immediately undercut by
other digital storefronts. Again, no exploit for megabucks, just being paid a reasonable price for running a file-hosting service.
NB: I will grant that a copyright-free world does not permit ongoing creator revenue from works (it has to all be up-front), at least without going socialist.