Therefore copyright is not necessary.

That's a big leap

For strict definitiond of necessary (see also sufficient) this is correct.

A is not necessary for B if a single instance of B exists without A.

In colloquial terms it is frequently used to suggest a recommendation with an imperitive need.

Different things for the same word. Only the former can be used to determine if something is necessary, the latter is a subjective assertion and can have no proof either way.

It worked before so why would copyright be in any way necessary?

The idea that art was made at all contradicts a premise offered by no one

You just replied "and" so not sure what premise you're even offing then.

You've replied to several of my posts in this thread, no need to play a fool