> The notion that one has rights to their own ideas is a marvelous development of liberal productive societies
If by "liberal productive society" you mean "capitalism", then yes, copyright is indeed a capitalistic invention. Only in capitalism could the notion of "owning" something which by its very definition is impossible to own remotely make any sense at all.
> It has allowed value to accrue to things that were actually valuable while also being intangible.
Ideas had value even before someone decided that you have to be able to assign them a monetary price. They were invaluable, by virtue of being free. The compulsive need of capitalism to monetize everything has actually destroyed the true value of ideas. We "pirates" fight to restore that value.
> The mere existence of art and innovation is not enough to make up for the destruction of rights to one's own work or ideas.
Except we aren't destroying anything. We're restoring it to the way it's supposed to be. As I mentioned in the previous paragraph, the truly destructive thing is copyright.
> Putting the progress of art and innovation solely in the hands of hobbyists is like saying the start-up world will work fine if no one gets funding anymore because people can always code stuff themselves at home on the weekend.
First, abolishing copyright (and by extension, intellectual property - which is not to be confused) does not mean you put progress into the hands of "hobbyists". We're just taking it out of the hands of monopolists, for the good of everyone.
Second, you're committing a very common fallacy made by pro-copyright people: you assert that copyright is essential to do business. It isn't.
Third, you imply that we have to care that business models will fail. They do all the time. Now, I ask why a business model that relies entirely on artificially constructed, nonsensical laws has any right to exist in the first place?
> But to dismiss rights out-of-hand is throwing the baby out with the bathwater and choosing a very weird solution [turning back the clock] to a very modern problem.
And another fallacy. You assert that since copyright was invented at some point, it was progress, and that abolishing it again will therefore be a step back. It's the opposite actually. The invention (and implementation) of copyright was a step back in the first place, so abolishing it will bring us back to where we are supposed to be.
I will take one point: the idea that by abolishing copyright you are taking progress out of the hands of monopolies. Copyright is the power that gives the 'little man' the ability to do that already. Copyright puts the power/value of an idea on a level playing field with the already-powerful and already-valuable.
Abolishing copyright would make the weak even weaker. The only proof one needs to see is that in the music business - where I come from - there has been a de facto absence of copyright protection for a decade now.
It hasn't done away with the 'monopolies' or large corporations.
It hasn't made artists any richer.
It has made it much more difficult for an artist to make money through sale of their primary product.
It has weakened artist positions to the point that they no longer only have to give up a lot of revenue on album sales - which was always they case; the new standard is the 360 deal that lets record and management companies tap into the entire income stream of an artist.
So, sorry, ten years in throwing copyright out has actually created the opposite effects that you predict.
> Copyright is the power that gives the 'little man' the ability to do that already.
I'm really sorry, but in what world do you live? Copyright is abused by the big corporations to secure monopolies, and isn't, wasn't and won't ever be meant for artists. It's the same argument as with patents, really. The myth that they serve to protect the poor, small man is a lie spread and maintained by exactly those who profit from them - the big corporations.
> The only proof one needs to see is that in the music business - where I come from - there has been a de facto absence of copyright protection for a decade now.
And what "music business" would that be? I only see copyright getting more draconian by the year.
> It has made it much more difficult for an artist to make money through sale of their primary product.
Well, maybe you should reconsider what your "primary product" is. A musician is a performer, first and foremost, and a concert is a service. There's also merchandise, which are tangible goods.
>album sales
Album sales have been dead for years now. Why are you trying to cling to a dead distribution/business model?
If by "liberal productive society" you mean "capitalism", then yes, copyright is indeed a capitalistic invention. Only in capitalism could the notion of "owning" something which by its very definition is impossible to own remotely make any sense at all.
> It has allowed value to accrue to things that were actually valuable while also being intangible.
Ideas had value even before someone decided that you have to be able to assign them a monetary price. They were invaluable, by virtue of being free. The compulsive need of capitalism to monetize everything has actually destroyed the true value of ideas. We "pirates" fight to restore that value.
> The mere existence of art and innovation is not enough to make up for the destruction of rights to one's own work or ideas.
Except we aren't destroying anything. We're restoring it to the way it's supposed to be. As I mentioned in the previous paragraph, the truly destructive thing is copyright.
> Putting the progress of art and innovation solely in the hands of hobbyists is like saying the start-up world will work fine if no one gets funding anymore because people can always code stuff themselves at home on the weekend.
First, abolishing copyright (and by extension, intellectual property - which is not to be confused) does not mean you put progress into the hands of "hobbyists". We're just taking it out of the hands of monopolists, for the good of everyone.
Second, you're committing a very common fallacy made by pro-copyright people: you assert that copyright is essential to do business. It isn't.
Third, you imply that we have to care that business models will fail. They do all the time. Now, I ask why a business model that relies entirely on artificially constructed, nonsensical laws has any right to exist in the first place?
> But to dismiss rights out-of-hand is throwing the baby out with the bathwater and choosing a very weird solution [turning back the clock] to a very modern problem.
And another fallacy. You assert that since copyright was invented at some point, it was progress, and that abolishing it again will therefore be a step back. It's the opposite actually. The invention (and implementation) of copyright was a step back in the first place, so abolishing it will bring us back to where we are supposed to be.