Hi,
yes, I agree. Talking is good and needed. I formulated a longer comment, if you don't mind.

When it comes to copyright though, I know in my country there is no legal requirement to state that you own copyrights in order for them to be established. Simply the act of creating an original work means you have a copyright on your production. At least that's my understanding

That is my understanding, too. Maybe, some further thoughts will stir that understanding ;-)

Through my counselling work with people, I have learned that the personal perspective has a kind of exclusivity by its nature. For example, I have counseled couples in divorce matters whose first question was often what the legal terms were.
I put that on the back burner in such conversations and asked: "Apart from the laws, what do you personally want to have negotiated after the divorce is finalised? What can you afford financially and emotionally? Do you have the firm intention to support your child financially and if so, how much may that be without getting yourself into trouble? Have you disclosed to the other person what is possible for you? You do not need to bother at all about what the law says, because it can never follow your individual case in the precision and need that you personally have. The most important thing is whether you yourself accept and want to take responsibility, that is feasible and possible without even calling a lawyer or a judge."

I see it in a similar way with copyrights. For me, applicable law comes second, not first. After all, it is supposed to be a guide in the case of absolute conflict, where all other possibilities of negotiation have been exhausted and an agreement could not be reached. But before that happens, there are various ways to reach such an agreement. If someone sends a warning or penalty to other market participants in my name, he must first ask me whether I accept this mandate from this particular person. Only then do I see a justification for the mandate holder to take action.

Therefore, it seems strange to me that an automatically existing mandate is assumed here, which refer to the reward pool as an asset worthy of protection that belongs to everyone and at the same time to no one really. But if the reward pool belongs to a person or a company, then let them take action against those they find guilty of abuse, but leave me out of it. Meaning: Do not expect me to use downvotes. If one wants me to take action, I will ask for compensation, if I am willing to do that. Downvotes are badly received, so much is clear. I can't just say "accept it" when the receiver is not in acceptance.

I cannot be considered a claimant to the reward pool on the one hand, but on the other hand not be able to assert any claims at all if I have the impression that any remuneration due to me is not flowing to me in the desired way. If no one has entered into a binding contract with anyone (which is the case here on the chain, if one is acting purely as a blogger), an act that claims to be on legal footing and to represent me, although I have never actively agreed to this representation.

The difference, I suppose, is that if I were to consider myself a shareholder in Hive Shares alone, whose shares are being minimised because of abusive actions, I could be said to have a fundamental interest in rejecting such.

But then I am left with the more philosophical question of how far I am actually prepared to acknowledge that theft and generosity occur in any system, and whether I think that every alleged criminal act should be stopped. I must see the single case then. Do I have time and interest for this? No. It's too much asked to act in a sphere which is beyond my reach and possibilities, I can only handle so much encounters.

Here I have the clear view that there are people who like to work in the executive, but who should receive reliable payment accordingly. If they do not receive this, something is rotten in the system. It becomes arbitrary.

Hivewatchers and others who - maybe, I don't know - cannot rely on a binding and reliable form of payment have then not only taken on a thankless job, but run the risk of trying to gain the missing recognition through compensatory actions. Which then express themselves as conflictual events.