Who wants to update the copyright laws?

[BenAcel]

A lot of good, hard working, and innocent people including disabled are being sued by Righthaven because of loopholes in Fair Use exemptions under Copyright law. I just contacted my districts senators and congresspeople to spearhead copyright law to update fair use exemptions to cover Internet postings, Youtube videos (and other streaming sites), and Internet related matters.

That way Wronghaven can no longer be in the business of suing people over postings or images from the Las Vegas Review Journal, Denver Post, or any other newspaper.

Fair Use must be updated to cover Internet postings, and other kinds of online activities to prevent poor and disabled bloggers from being sued for copyright infringement ever again.

You can do this to when you contact your districts congresspeople or senators including Ron Paul tell him or her this:

When their office picks up your phone call tell them that you like them to spearhead the copyright law.

Then when they want you to state an example of why the Fair Use Exemptions need to be updated then tell them about Righthaven and them suing disabled bloggers (Brian Hill of USWGO and another disabled blogger being sued), college students with little money, and poor folks that cannot afford legal representation.

If they ask you what they think needs updating tell them:

I like for Fair Use Exemptions to cover Internet postings, Streaming video/audio, online petitions, and anything transmitted over the Internet to have legal protections of Fair Use if used for educational and political purposes thus protected under the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.

So who is with me to reform copyright law and update Fair Use to cover Internet postings?

Heck look what they did to two websites already.

http://www.rockymountainright.com/

http://uswgo.com/

and way loads of even more websites may start shutting down over fear of lawsuits due to loopholes in Fair Use. We can't deny this is true because it talks about phonographs (Or something like that) and so copyright is really old before the Internet and so Righthaven believes the Internet is the new suing frontier. That is why we need copyright and fair use reform.

[Zatch]

My views on copyright are best explained by this video:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVXCr6upWUo

[muzzled dogg]

would not mind that clause being struck from teh constitution

[Elwar]

The best reform for a bad law is doing away with it.

[tpreitzel]

Yeah, it's a start, but as Elwar said, "The best reform for a bad law is doing away with it."

[low preference guy]

i don't want them updated. i want them eliminated.

[tangent4ronpaul]

I (Ryder truck) Righthaven

Gerrrr - what fuckin scumbags! :mad:

Is Anonymous on top of this? I thought I heard something about them going after these people. If so, what happened?

It's enough to make you want to download and fire up LOIC...

[specsaregood]

Fair Use must be updated to cover Internet postings, and other kinds of online activities to prevent poor and disabled bloggers from being sued for copyright infringement ever again.


Only the poor and disabled? So if they were only suing "rich" people, able-bodied or corporations you would have no problem with the lawsuits it sounds like. Wtf does being diasbled have to do with committing copyright violations?

[Flash]

Only the poor and disabled? So if they were only suing "rich" people, able-bodied or corporations you would have no problem with the lawsuits it sounds like. Wtf does being diasbled have to do with committing copyright violations?

On the corporations bit:

If a small company was suing a corporation such as Apple for copyright infringement, which frequently stomps down competition using copyright laws (http://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHMD_enUS392US392&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=apple+sues+psystar), then I would support such action. Any Corporation that uses the heavy hand of government to suppress smaller companies has little sympathy from me.

[Xenophage]

The opposition to copyright laws here demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of the philosophy of human rights by many people who call themselves libertarian. It also presents a Marxian paradox as we head further into a digital age where human productivity is increasingly more focused on intangible, non-physical mediums. Ideas, in the end, are all that really define any human, and as we advance technologically ideas will increasingly become the sole product of every human endeavor.

What will society look like in a few hundred years (or perhaps sooner) when industry and science have eliminated physical scarcity? Imagine for a moment that we have replicators, nano-scale self-replicating machines and super intelligent A.I. Scarcity of any physical want or need is defined only by the amount of usable energy contained in the Universe, which may be infinite. Human beings spend the majority of their lives pursuing recreation, art, and philosophy. In the proposed scenario, the only thing that's really scarce is an original idea, and we all know that economic activity only exists as a result of the scarcity of a particular thing that satisfies a want or need. We don't trade nondescript rocks for a reason.

Will we then exist in some collectivist utopia where all the products of mankind are freely and equally distributed to everyone, regardless of the desires of the creators of those products? What is this morality, if not one of self-sacrifice? Where is the motivation on the part of the creator, if he can't profit in some way by his creations - bearing in mind that "profit" in this future world is more likely to take the form of adulation or control over the ultimate form of an idea.

This is just some basic speculation that I'm surprised nobody brings up, but the basic moral principle that applies to *all* times in human history is this: What right does *anyone* have to *ever* profit off the intellectual efforts of another human being?

Those who deny intellectual property rights ultimately wish to be slaveholders (whether they recognize it or not), cracking whips against the skulls of the most creative people in society, enjoying the fruits of intellectual effort and discovery without having to exercise any of their own intellectual effort.

The leap of illogic that it takes for a "libertarian" to proclaim that intellectual property doesn't exist confounds me.

[Zatch]

The opposition to copyright laws here demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of the philosophy of human rights by many people who call themselves libertarian. It also presents a Marxian paradox...


Thomas Jefferson to Isaac McPherson

13 Aug. 1813

It has been pretended by some, (and in England especially,) that inventors have a natural and exclusive right to their inventions, and not merely for their own lives, but inheritable to their heirs. But while it is a moot question whether the origin of any kind of property is derived from nature at all, it would be singular to admit a natural and even an hereditary right to inventors. It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance. By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common, is the property for the moment of him who occupies it, but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it. Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society. It would be curious then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from anybody. Accordingly, it is a fact, as far as I am informed, that England was, until we copied her, the only country on earth which ever, by a general law, gave a legal right to the exclusive use of an idea. In some other countries it is sometimes done, in a great case, and by a special and personal act, but, generally speaking, other nations have thought that these monopolies produce more embarrassment than advantage to society; and it may be observed that the nations which refuse monopolies of invention, are as fruitful as England in new and useful devices.

Considering the exclusive right to invention as given not of natural right, but for the benefit of society, I know well the difficulty of drawing a line between the things which are worth to the public the embarrassment of an exclusive patent, and those which are not. As a member of the patent board for several years, while the law authorized a board to grant or refuse patents, I saw with what slow progress a system of general rules could be matured.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_8s12.html

[tpreitzel]

Search for the subject of patents and copyrights at:

http://www.ilanamercer.com/phprunner/public_article_list_list.php?a=search&value=1&SearchFor=copyright&SearchOption=Contains&SearchField=

Good luck. ;)

[Sentient Void]

Intellectual 'property' is theft. IP is State mandated law which tells me how / how not I can use or arrange my own justly acquired property, and fashion it in a way that benefits my life, or in a way that I can offer my justly acquired property, arranged in any fashion, at a lower price than my competitors. To advocate a gang of thugs (the State) to tell me what i can or can't do with my own property is inherently anti-property, anti-freemarket, and anti-capitalist. Logically, it goes against anything and everything about capitalism, the concept of property, individual rights, and liberty/libertarianism.

The concept of 'property' was created in order to manage *scarce* resources. Information, ideas and 'arrangements of property' (such as the schematics of which to arrange a chair, or the arrangements of bits/bytes for music, art, videos, etc), are *not* scarce, and thus are not legitimate property.

Many IP Statists talk about how individuals and companies have a 'right to profit off of their mental and physical labor'. I think this is a confused statement that's only partially true. Of course, you have a *right* to your justly-owned property, and you have a *right* to trade with others who are willing to trade with you for your goods/services. However, you do not have any legitimate 'right to profit', merely because you have engaged in mental and physical labor.

Reductio ad Absurdum Example(s) to illustrate my point:

If I sit around and fashion mudpies all day, I have obviously engaged in physical and (although limited) mental labor. Do I have a 'right' to profit off of these items? Shall I compel, or hire the State to compel, others to purchase these mudpies at a profit from me? of course not, this would be absurd.

Are businesses *entitled* to profits of their goods and services? Of course not. They must persuade others that they are offering a good or service that is of a better value to their customers than the money in their hands is of value to them, in order to make profits. If a company was very profitable, and then a competitor popped up and started 'stealing business' from the older company because they offered a better product at a better price - they would be pulling profits from the old company. Just because the old company has lost profits to the new competitor - would they be justified in calling in the State to outlaw the new competitor on the grounds that it is taking away profits from the old company? Of course not, this is also absurd.

Clearly, the idea that an individual or business is entitled to profits due to mental and/or physical labor is ultimately antithetical to the concept of the free market and liberty. No offense, Randroids.

Xenophage, I urge you to reconsider your stance on IP.

Stephan Kinsella also came out with a good book on this called 'Against Intellectual Property' - I think it's available as a PDF for free on mises.org BTW.

[tpreitzel]

Search for the subject of patents and copyrights at:

http://www.ilanamercer.com/phprunner/public_article_list_list.php?a=search&value=1&SearchFor=copyright&SearchOption=Contains&SearchField=

Good luck. ;)

Not to slight the fact that "creative" inspiration often comes in the form of dreams which certainly lies outside the domain of human effort and initiative... ;)

For a human to claim ownership of IP implies the human is the SOLE source of inspiration and effort... which is rarely the case and most likely NEVER the case.

[mczerone]

The leap of illogic that it takes for a "libertarian" to proclaim that intellectual property doesn't exist confounds me.

Property is an object that has been acted upon, extant in the scarce world. Intellectual devises are information, and can be replicated to infinity, with no harm done to the ideas still contained in your head or in your book.

The only "property" is the book, the labor it takes to replicate or teach the information, and the hard drives the info is stored on.

Patterns are not property, and if you claim that they are, try to enforce your claimed rights.

You can't do it without a state, because you, as a individual, cannot control what goes on inside other people's brains. You can't tell someone to forget that there's a better way to build a mouse trap or to forget the song they've learned to play. Only with a state that can issue statutory decrees of protectionism can intellectual privileges exist. So why would a group of people have the power to create a new right, if individuals do not have that power themselves?

I'm not saying that certain markets could not designate single "inventors" as their preferred supplier of the invention, but that inventor cannot justly use the power of the state to tell someone 2000 miles away that they can't build their own copy of the invention. He would be justified in this no more than he would be justified breaking into his neighbor's home to destroy an "unauthorized copy" of the invention.

[specsaregood]

Those who deny intellectual property rights ultimately wish to be slaveholders (whether they recognize it or not), cracking whips against the skulls of the most creative people in society, enjoying the fruits of intellectual effort and discovery without having to exercise any of their own intellectual effort.


I like how you put that. Bunch of leeches is what they are.

[Xenophage]

Intellectual 'property' is theft. IP is State mandated law which tells me how / how not I can use or arrange my own justly acquired property, and fashion it in a way that benefits my life, or in a way that I can offer my justly acquired property, arranged in any fashion, at a lower price than my competitors. To advocate a gang of thugs (the State) to tell me what i can or can't do with my own property is inherently anti-property, anti-freemarket, and anti-capitalist. Logically, it goes against anything and everything about capitalism, the concept of property, individual rights, and liberty/libertarianism.


Property is an object that has been acted upon, extant in the scarce world. Intellectual devises are information, and can be replicated to infinity, with no harm done to the ideas still contained in your head or in your book.

The only "property" is the book, the labor it takes to replicate or teach the information, and the hard drives the info is stored on.

Your definitions of property are unimaginative and incomplete, based on Locke's philosophy, which leads you to the contradiction central to your argument. The arguments John Locke made assumed that rights were an inherent, absolute property of nature not unlike the Law of Gravity or the Law of Identity. While he was revolutionary in attempting to assert human rights through the application of reason, his method was ultimately biased and not rational. Simple observation shows that rights are not inherent, absolute laws of reality. DNA does not encode the Right to Life.

Rights are social constructs, meaningful only within the context of human society (until or unless we engage socially with non-humans). They are moral principles, not natural laws. Morality deals with the realm of choices, which rest upon values and goals. A consistently rational moral code, based on the value of self-interest, inevitably leads one to conclude that in order to achieve happiness and prosperity as a human being (which necessitates social interaction) that one must assert and grant certain inalienable rights. Rights allow us to exist according to our nature - the nature of mankind - which requires that we engage one another in non-coercive, mutually beneficial trade with great respect to the sanctity of the individual. In this sense, human rights are inseparable from a complete, objective definition of a human, which was John Locke's goal, but given a more thorough and meaningful purpose.

This theory of rights is built upon a solid foundation stemming from an epistemology of reason and an ethics of self-interest. Further analysis can be found in the writings of Ayn Rand.

If a right to property is a moral ideal that we should aspire to, then what is property and why do we need it? It can hardly be argued that human beings exist only by their own effort, raging against an overtly hostile Universe. The tools that humans require to survive and to thrive are the products of more than brute labor. They are the products of reasoning minds engaged in creative thought. This almost primordial urge to be creative thinkers has beckoned us throughout the ages to gain and use knowledge, to be inventive, to snatch the secrets of the cosmos and utilize them like Prometheus stole the fire of the gods. But this presumes a selfish desire to achieve, because even if we act in the interest of a valued fellow human or loved companion, we're still acting first in the best interests of our own hearts.

Productivity requires property, requires self-interest, and what's more: requires thought. Unlike splitting the atom, you can't split the process of engaged creative thought away from the process of physical effort and define property only as that which man creates by the toil of his hands. If man creates anything at all, it as at least by a fusion of physical and intellectual labor, and now more often than before requires only the latter.

If productive achievement is therefore the moral value that necessitates property rights, property rights must by necessity also include the rights to one's own intellectual efforts. For someone to have property, that person must have control over their property. Just as nothing but your own conscience or the application of defensive force prevents you from stealing a pencil, nothing but your own conscience or the application of force prevents you from stealing an idea. The creator of something has every right to defend his creation against those who would seek to steal and profit from it. The thief is the initiator of force.

Therefore, when you a copy a CD or any physical medium that contains music, you're not just copying the physical object. You're copying the intellectual efforts of the composer. If you copy the design of a new engine that runs only on static electricity captured from the air, you're copying the intellectual efforts of its inventor. If those creators didn't give you permission, then you're stealing.


Patterns are not property, and if you claim that they are, try to enforce your claimed rights.


What are YOU except a pattern in space and time? Do you also deny that you own your own consciousness? Where is your Right to Life? What's a physical object except a pattern in space and time? ALL property boils down to patterns, and I propose to enforce my claimed rights the same way you do: with more patterns of atoms and molecules that constitute a gun, or (much more preferably) the patterns of thought that constitute a good argument (or a constitution).



The concept of 'property' was created in order to manage *scarce* resources. Information, ideas and 'arrangements of property' (such as the schematics of which to arrange a chair, or the arrangements of bits/bytes for music, art, videos, etc), are *not* scarce, and thus are not legitimate property.

If ideas are not scarce, where was the Mona Lisa before DaVinci painted it? Where was Human Action before Von Mises wrote it? Surely you can see that the *scarcest* resource in all the world is an original idea. Ideas are more scarce than any physical combination of elements in nature. What's more, they are even more important to our survival and happiness.



Many IP Statists talk about how individuals and companies have a 'right to profit off of their mental and physical labor'. I think this is a confused statement that's only partially true. Of course, you have a *right* to your justly-owned property, and you have a *right* to trade with others who are willing to trade with you for your goods/services. However, you do not have any legitimate 'right to profit', merely because you have engaged in mental and physical labor.

You're absolutely right on this point, except that you fail to extend property to intellectual creations.



Not to slight the fact that "creative" inspiration often comes in the form of dreams which certainly lies outside the domain of human effort and initiative...

For a human to claim ownership of IP implies the human is the SOLE source of inspiration and effort... which is rarely the case and most likely NEVER the case

So where do ideas come from then? From some mystical, outside-the-universe fount? From the Greek muse? Get a grip, man, ideas come from people. Even if you have a dream, aren't you the one dreaming? Aren't you the one interpreting upon waking up? This is just silly. Good ideas require effort and discipline.

[Philhelm]

^Here's my revision.

[Xenophage]

In response to Jefferson, I read that letter years ago and it prompted me to think a great deal on this matter. Ultimately I decided that while I revere Jefferson, and agree with him on so much, he was not infallible and occasionally got things wrong. I mean, just look at the record of his Presidency!

[tpreitzel]

So where do ideas come from then? From some mystical, outside-the-universe fount? From the Greek muse? Get a grip, man, ideas come from people. Even if you have a dream, aren't you the one dreaming? Aren't you the one interpreting upon waking up? This is just silly. Good ideas require effort and discipline.

Regardless of my personal views, dreams certainly aren't initiated in the will of the human experiencing them. To claim otherwise is "just silly". ;) Maybe, inventors are mini-Gods with the ability to conjure dreams and associated imagery leading to great works of art on personal command. Right .................... LOL!

[specsaregood]

Thomas Jefferson to Isaac McPherson


I'd like to applaud your chutzpah of replying to a post that claimed that those against IP wished to be slaveholders, with a letter by an actual slaveholder aguing against IP. lol

[cindy25]

of course they need to be updated, and severely restricted; but you have the same chance of reforming copyright laws as ending aid to Israel; if anything they want more draconian laws

[Fox McCloud]

the logical conclusion of property rights is that I can sue you for merely copying my style of walk, speech, dress, clothing, etc--after all, your idea was "unique" and "scarce" and you're entitled to the profit from generating it.

If you don't want your idea to be copied, modified, or used by someone else, you have two choices--using coercion to stop someone from using that idea, which is obviously immoral.....or you can simply refuse to share that idea. This is what Locke meant when he insisted that property rights were self-evident or built into nature; if you own yourself, then property rights exist, by default, and are not social constructs agreed upon in society--will some individuals and societies attempt to deny or put that concept down? Sure, but it doesn't mean it's not fact---denying the existence of gravity or refusing to recognize it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

If one properly understands property rights, then one will come to the logical conclusion that for something to be true property, it must be born out of self-ownership, or else its' not a property right at all--it becomes and entitlement or an allowance by the State.

As for utilitarian/social benefits to abolishing IP? Look to "Against Intellectual Monopoly" which aptly demonstrates that abolishing IP would likely lead to more ideas and more products at lower prices. I could go into it further, but I'd recommend any and all to purchase/rent/check out the book--it provides very compelling reasons to ditch IP completely....what makes it even more impressive is that it's not from an Austrian view.

[low preference guy]

If you don't want your idea to be copied, modified, or used by someone else, you have two choices--using coercion to stop someone from using that idea, which is obviously immoral.....or you can simply refuse to share that idea.

There is actually a third option. He can show you his cool way of walking (or idea or whatever) if you pay him money and agree in a contract to not imitate it.

[Fox McCloud]

There is actually a third option. He can show you his cool way of walking (or idea or whatever) if you pay him money and agree in a contract to not imitate it.

right, but this is really just refusing to share the idea, in general...I mean, if 2 people know it, but it's still not used in the public light, it's just the same as the original individual not revealing the idea at all.

[low preference guy]

right, but this is really just refusing to share the idea, in general...I mean, if 2 people know it, but it's still not used in the public light, it's just the same as the original individual not revealing the idea at all.

I see it as different because you're making money, and you can share it with more than one people. You can share it with anyone who wants to pay and agree to not share it with others.

Sure, at some point it is likely that someone with whom you don't have a contract will access the idea and you won't have a way to find out who broke the contract and prosecute him. But at least you made some money for a while. If you want a society in which creators are rewarded, the right way is not to create copyright laws which impose restrictions upon people who never agreed to them. The right way to do it is just through education, stressing how important it is to reward creators so that the people who get to see your cool walking don't break the contract they have with you and show it to somebody else, and that doing so becomes socially reprehensible.

[Fox McCloud]

I see it as different because you're making money, and you can share it with more than one people. You can share it with anyone who wants to pay and agree to not share it with others.

Sure, at some point it is likely that someone with whom you don't have a contract will access the idea and you won't have a way to find out who broke the contract and prosecute him. But at least you made some money for a while. If you want a society in which creators are rewarded, the right way is not to create copyright laws which impose restrictions upon people who never agreed to them. The right way to do it is just through education, stressing how important it is to reward creators so that the people who get to see your cool walking don't break the contract they have with you and show it to somebody else, and that doing so becomes socially reprehensible.

I largely agree with you, I just can't see anyone buying something that they can't effectively use---for your particular situation, what good is knowing how to walk a certain way if you....can't walk that particular way.

[guitarlifter]

the logical conclusion of property rights is that I can sue you for merely copying my style of walk, speech, dress, clothing, etc--after all, your idea was "unique" and "scarce" and you're entitled to the profit from generating it.

If you don't want your idea to be copied, modified, or used by someone else, you have two choices--using coercion to stop someone from using that idea, which is obviously immoral.....or you can simply refuse to share that idea. This is what Locke meant when he insisted that property rights were self-evident or built into nature; if you own yourself, then property rights exist, by default, and are not social constructs agreed upon in society--will some individuals and societies attempt to deny or put that concept down? Sure, but it doesn't mean it's not fact---denying the existence of gravity or refusing to recognize it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

If one properly understands property rights, then one will come to the logical conclusion that for something to be true property, it must be born out of self-ownership, or else its' not a property right at all--it becomes and entitlement or an allowance by the State.

As for utilitarian/social benefits to abolishing IP? Look to "Against Intellectual Monopoly" which aptly demonstrates that abolishing IP would likely lead to more ideas and more products at lower prices. I could go into it further, but I'd recommend any and all to purchase/rent/check out the book--it provides very compelling reasons to ditch IP completely....what makes it even more impressive is that it's not from an Austrian view.

Exactly! Jefferson told of how, if one person is taught something, the teacher's own knowledge wasn't reduced, or how lighting one candle with another doesn't reduce the latter. Both only improve society as a whole instead of oppress progress.

[low preference guy]

I largely agree with you, I just can't see anyone buying something that they can't effectively use---for your particular situation, what good is knowing how to walk a certain way if you....can't walk that particular way.

but you can buy software or books or music and agree to not make copies, and still gain a lot from them.

[Fox McCloud]

but you can buy software or books or music and agree to not make copies, and still gain a lot from them.

sure, but, again, same problem; under that stipulation, the person who bought it could only listen to it when he was by himself; not even a family member could listen to it, since doing so would violate the contract. See how much of a problem this creates very quickly? As pointed out in, "Against Intellectual Monopoly", once IP law is gone, it's unlikely you'll see even very much DRM because, economically, DRM free music/software/games would be more valuable than DRM-laced music/software/games.

Also, even if it was laced with DRM, only the original person is bound to not copy it (I don't think a contract would ever stipulate that you can't share it with anyone, because that would generate some really weird problems that the market likely wouldn't tolerate)---so if I friend comes over and says "can I copy this?" and the friend allows it...well, the friend can then proceed to strip out the DRM and any EULA forcing you to agree to certain terms, then re-release it on the internet.

No matter how you slice IP, even if it's attempted via voluntary contracts in the marketplace...it fails.

In an IP-less world, you'd still probably see it, but it would be in the minority.

[mczerone]

sure, but, again, same problem; under that stipulation, the person who bought it could only listen to it when he was by himself; not even a family member could listen to it, since doing so would violate the contract.

How do you know the terms of yet unwritten contracts? Certainly some could require complete secrecy, but others may be like current IP laws, where you can lend the physical item under the same term to which you are bound. Meaning sharing is okay, as long as you have them assume the no-copying duty.

Still others may be a "freely copy and use this work" license that only says that you must acknowledge the original author. Still others may just dedicate the work to the public and merely change for the transmission of the work.

The point is that they must find a way to pay for the enforcement of these different options themselves. Socializing the costs (1) limits society to effectively one option without additional costs, (2) does not test one solution against any other, (3) uses force against those who would like to try some other way to defend their "ideas", and (4) promotes the idea that without the govt providing it, the service wouldn't exist in a voluntary market.