Slashdot Mirror

Copyright and patents are both impediments to technological and cultural progress enforced by the barrel of the government gun. Both of these serve to create a government-enforced monopoly.Against intellectual property

I'm looking for a well written and researched piece that can tell me why TPB and other such sites are good for society, not some crap "I just want stuff for free" argument.

The simple utilitarian answer is that the pain you feel in not being compensated for your software is less than the aggregate marginal benefit to the users who didn't pay you but still use it. The simple rights-based answer is that you have no right to restrict the behavior of a 3rd party with whom you have no contract -- which is what govt-enforce intellectual property is.

For deep reading...
http://techliberation.com/2006/11/22/a-practical-argument-against-copyright-protection/

and...
http://libertariannation.org/a/f31l1.html

FYI http://libertariannation.org/a/f31l1.html

Well, maybe in their imaginations. But that "libertarian" was hustling for exactly that kind of rigged market. Which is the only kind of market I've ever seen any "actual" libertarian hustle for in reality.

I, and others, have posted a number of tymes about opening up the airwaves. I and other libertarians are against ALL government granted monopolies. As for other libertarians, read some of the posts in the Libertarian Party's forums on monopolies some tyme. Nobody who supports monopolies can be considered a libertarian. How about this:

"Abstract: We hereby clarify the radical libertarian stance about Microsoft and government, and more generally about monopolies. We explain how the original evil behind Microsoft's monopoly is government intervention in the form of intellectual property privileges, and how any solution should begin by abolishing these privileges."

Or "The Libertarian Case Against Intellectual Property Rights ".

But there's a reason Doctors and Lawyers cost so much. Do we really want $350/hr computer technicians?

  Well I don't know about lawyers, but the reason doctors cost so much is the A.M.A.

Here's an article on the last Great American Health Care Crisis, when health care was too cheap and freely available:

  http://libertariannation.org/a/f12l3.html *

  Long story short: doctors were numerous, and working class people got their health care through local "lodges" -- fraternities like the Shriners and such. Then a group of hoity-toity doctors got together and declared that it was an affront to the dignity of the medical profession to have doctors at the beck and call of sweaty underclasses. Heck, some of these "fraternities" that young doctors were scrambling to work for were made up of WOMEN, or even (*gasp*!) NEGROES!
  These doctors formed the A.M.A. and lobbied the government. The government, always a friend of the wealthy and important, granted them the power to license doctors, and backed it with a threat of prison for any doctor who practiced without the A.M.A.'s approval.
  It got sold as a way to protect people from lousy doctors, but among the A.M.A.'s first acts were to refuse licenses to doctors from less prominent medical schools (shutting them down overnight) and to immediately revoke the license of any doctor who accepted a "lodge practice" for one of these fraternities. (Formerly considered a good job by many physicians.) This meant that a lot of poor folks were suddenly without health care, and the price of such skyrocketed. (It was still relatively cheap compared to today's monstrously inefficient HMO system, though) Screw you, little guys! Health care should be a luxury for the wealthy, so people appreciate doctors properly!

  * The article, while otherwise excellent, does incorrectly use "socialized" for government intervention. OTOH, few people in the U.S. seems to know what socialism is these days.

  - mantar

Recommendation: The committee suggests exploring whether or not the notion of copy is an appropriate foundation for copyright law, and whether a new foundation can be constructed for copyright, based on the goal set forth in the Constitution ("promote the progress of science and the useful arts") and a tactic by which it is achieved, namely, providing incentive to authors and publishers. In this framework, the question would not be whether a copy had been made, but whether a use of a work was consistent with the goal and tactic (i.e., did it contribute to the desired "progress" and was it destructive, when taken alone or aggregated with other similar copies, of an author's incentive?). This concept is similar to fair use but broader in scope, as it requires considering the range of factors by which to measure the impact of the activity on authors, publishers, and others.

Copyright was originally the grant of a temporary government-supported monopoly on copying a work, not a property right. Its sole purpose was to encourage the circulation of ideas by giving creators and publishers a short-term incentive to disseminate their work. Over the past 50 years, as a result of heavy lobbying by content industries, copyright has grown to such ludicrous proportions that it now often inhibits rather than promotes the circulation of ideas, leaving thousands of old movies, records and books languishing behind a legal barrier.

It may be objected that the person who originated the information deserves ownership rights over it. But information is not a concrete thing an individual can control; it is a universal, existing in other people's minds and other people's property, and over these the originator has no legitimate sovereignty. You cannot own information without owning other people.
(from http://libertariannation.org/a/f31l1.html)

Germany was more unregulated in the 50s-70s, I'd say. Then the federal budget and regulations started ballooning.

Yes, 10th century life was hard. That includes ultra-capitalism. I think today's political system applied back then would have resulted in *real* misery, much worse than things were (yes I know, there was much poverty; but as I said those were the times).

And I wouldn't look at today's USA problems like poverty and healthcare, because those are the result of decades under a corporatist system. Take a look at http://libertariannation.org/a/f12l3.html for how healthcare was in places, and could be (roughly the idea at least).

Today's capitalist countries aren't *anything* like a libertarian society would work. There are just so many interventions, regulations, and other laws that prevent society from being any different. In that regard you could say, your society/economy *is* totally planned.

How government fixed the health problem:

http://libertariannation.org/a/f12l3.html

No, "rational libertarians" would NOT agree.

In both personal and business dealings, libertarians believe private individuals should be allowed to discriminate upon any basis they choose in regard to deciding with whom they will associate. However, when it comes to a public institution, which is funded by taxpayers, they do not believe such discrimination should be permitted.

IIRC, Goldwater didn't care if there were gays in the military. But if someone didn't want to hire one, that would be their business - not Uncle Sam's. It is the gubblement that could not discriminate. What we have today is the opposite (wrt Marriage too).

We say that if discrimination exists then that discrimination creates an opportunity for an entrepreneur.

Shouldn't a person have an inalienable right to rent an apartment or be employed regardless of sex preferences, etc.?

The existence of multiple factions (a true point of yours) does not trump basic tenants. You do not know the basic tenants

Being libertarian does mean I don't think people should be held accountable for their actions, if anything I believe greater accountability is the only way to achieve greater freedom.

If that "accountability" is by the government in areas that did not involve a violation of fundamental, "negative" rights (e.g., not getting murdered, not having your property stolen), then you are not a libertarian. Plain and simple. You are not even mostly libertarian. In fact, you are not even a little libertarian.

A beer belly does not make a dude a "little pregnant".

With respect to (WRT) immigration, you may find room for debate but I doubt it. Here is a start for your research: first link supports you - yeah!

I have been reading the political literature of various pro-freedom thinkers for 17 years. Most of it is theory and often it is decades old. It used not to be the case that immigration would be equated with higher taxes due to health care and schooling. If the government stuck to its proper role, that would not be a concern. You probably support universal health care or universal insurance (same thing) or employee-funded mandatory insurance (more or less, same thing again), and I bet you are in favor of tax-payer-funded schools too.

*sigh* Yes, there is. If I have a hammer and you also want a hammer so you copy my hammer by manufacturing one yourself, just like mine, have you just stolen my hammer then? Even though I still have my hammer, right here? Because that's actually what you're saying.

You cannot make a big budget action movie by 'touring', 'selling merchandise' or any of the self-satisfied rationalizations people have suggested that musicians turn to.

No, but you can't realistically build a real movie theater at home either. Any way value is added, it can be exploited to drive sales of a good or a service. In Singapore, movie theaters have luxury seats and serve meals as an added value to the movie. Economically, there is no longer any added value in making a copy so it should not be used as the basis for value. Economics 101.

References:
Mindjack - Piracy is good?
International Herald Tribune - Imagine a world without copyright
A History And Possible Future Of Cinema
First Monday - Piercing the myths of p2p
TV Week - NBC: iPod Boosts Prime Time
Stealing Music
Roderick T. Long - The Libertarian Case Against Intellectual Property Rights

Exactly. Most Libertarians (like myself) are adamantly against any state intervention. The argument amougst libertarians on the subject whether IP monopolies (copyrights & patents) should be protected (if at all). I have personally done some research on what the effects of absolutely NO state-granted IP monoplies would be. Surprisingly, I have found that one could seriously argue that ALL IP law is harmful to society, NOT helpful. Yes, there would be drastic changes to profit models, but once those changes were assimilated, additional benefits could be had and we would actually see much faster innovation in the marketplace. There would be less superflous and wasteful research and development--and corporate fat would be cut because there wouldn't be alot of room for it in the fast paced market. In short, companies that could normally *buy* a monopoly from the government, would now actually have to work for their money on a consistant basis. As a capitalist and business owner myself, I don't have a problem with this. I'm pretty sure the average consumer wouldn't have a problem either. Companies would truly have to compete in the marketplace over quality and execution of service, not over who can file patents the fastest, or who has the most expensive lawyers.

Anyway, as soon as I finish my research I'll post an article somewhere and let the slashdot crowd have at it.

What copyright holders argue or say about it only matters to the degree that they have a vote.

A large bloc of U.S. voters are heavily influenced by TV news. All parent companies of national commercial TV news outlets also own MPAA studios (NBC, CNBC, MSNBC->Universal; ABC->Disney; CBS->Paramount; CNN, CNN Headline News->Warner Bros.; Fox News->20th Century Fox), and they won't allow a candidate with libertarian views on copyright to get a lot of face time on TV news. This is part of how Big Copyright buys the American vote.

You're just wrong.

because no company was willing to risk the capital to commercialize them without owning title"

If it was IMPOSSIBLE for ANYONE to "own title", the companies would not be at a disadvantage. It's only because titles CAN BE OWNED,that the market is unfair and unfree.

This is discussed at http://libertariannation.org/a/f31l1.html#4:

In his autobiography, Herbert Spencer tells a story that is supposed to illustrate the need for intellectual property rights. Spencer had invented a new kind of hospital bed. Out of philanthropic motives, he decided to make his invention a gift to mankind rather than claiming a patent on it. To his dismay, this generous plan backfired: no company was willing to manufacture the bed, because in the absence of a guaranteed monopoly they found it too risky to invest money in any product that might be undercut by competition. Doesn't this show the need for patent laws?

I don't think so. To begin with, Spencer's case seems overstated. After all, companies are constantly producing items (beds, chairs, etc.) to which no one holds any exclusive patent. But never mind; let's grant Spencer's story without quibbling. What does it prove?

Recall that the companies who rejected Spencer's bed in favor of other uses for their capital were choosing between producing a commodity in which they would have a monopoly and producing a commodity in which they would not have a monopoly. Faced with that choice, they went for the patented commodity as the less risky option (especially in light of the fact that they had to compete with other companies likewise holding monopolies). So the existence of patent laws, like any other form of protectionist legislation, gave the patented commodity an unfair competitive advantage against its unpatented rival. The situation Spencer describes, then, is simply an artifact of the patent laws themselves! In a society without patent laws, Spencer's philanthropic bed would have been at no disadvantage in comparison with other products.

Don't blame the free market on that one. Blame your all powerful government. In a truly free market there shouldn't be any patents, at least according to some Libertarians

capitalism, economic system based on private ownership of the means of production, in which personal profit can be acquired through investment of capital and employment of labor. Capitalism is grounded in the concept of free enterprise, which argues that government intervention in the economy should be restricted and that a free market, based on supply and demand, will ultimately maximize consumer welfare.

for libertarian arguments AGAINST patents and IP in general:

http://libertariannation.org/a/f31l1.html

There are other systems that might even be preferable to PR, such as Condorcet-based systems. However, even under these systems, no individual has a realistic voice, nor does it make sense that this would be the solution to most of our political problems even if they did. People likely might vote more, but whether they would actually care about politics more is another question, and their vote still wouldn't count for much more than under the plurality rule.

1. The chance of influencing an election in any system with a large number of voters is so small that if the goal of an individual's vote is to elect a candidate or influence policy, that individual might as well not vote.

2. The 'voice of the people' is itself influenced by the elites (media for example) of a society, and as such cannot be construed to accurately be the 'people'.

3. Individual voters suffer from a lack of information (and they are usually biased to their cultural beliefs) about the possible policies and the effects of those policies. This is one of the reasons why, when voters are asked what their positions are on issues, it is often at odds with what experts knowledgeable about those issues support. This is an inherent problem with the idea of the 'voice of the people' as an accurate tool for measuring the right policy. (Of course, experts can be wrong too, and the authoritarian's belief that the people are wrong and therefore must be controlled suffers from the reverse of this problem.)

One of the reasons why competitive free markets work as well as they do is because of the ability to opt-out. This ability to exit is probably the most important part of a free market, mostly because of the incentive to create better products. It has an added benefit however, since in order to be knowledgeable enough to quit buying a product, you have to have experience with it or have drawn from the experience of others. If a company sells a bad product, another company will try selling a better one, and people will 'move' from the bad product to the better one. In a centralized political structure this isn't the case, and in a typical federal system (like the US) the cost of moving from one regional locality to another is too great to allow an easy opt-out.

A better system would be one which allows the opt-out in politics as well, by placing most decision-making at a local level, and by disconnecting that decentralization from region. This would allow individuals to change localities, effectively an opt-out or saying "I'm not buying what you're selling" to whichever locality they had belonged to. This would be a far stronger check on damaging policies, as well as giving a greater and more accurate voice, than simply changing the voting system.

http://libertariannation.org/a/f11l1.html

How sad it is to think that you believe the government will protect you. The government police are always a phone call and a drive away, harassing some drug user or arresting prostitutes. They will get there while you are starting to decompose.

How unfortunate for you to assume that there's nobody here in my house to shoot you the second you try to 'steal my stuff'.

A better solution to obtuse, inefficient government protection services: private security

http://libertariannation.org/b/police.htm

A good summary is here

Badnarik doesn't have much on the topic on his official website. According to this transcript of an interview he supports intellectual property for the life of the creator but doesn't give much detail. (What about something from a corporate employee? Does it last for the length of his employment, his life, or the existence of the corporation?)

It's a very important question. Ayn Rand was generally looney, but I very much like her suggested 7 year limit on all forms of intellectual property ownership. On the other hand, many libertarians supported unlimited ownership of intellectual property.

Most libertarians believe intellectual property is a right to be protected more or less like normal property although, like most Americans, many feel that the system has probably gotten out of hand and should be curtailed (i.e., 28 year copyrights intead of 95 year). There is a minority viewpoint within the libertarian party that views intellectual property as an artificially created government monopoly and thus something to be removed from our system of government.

I'm one of those minority guys. :) When I finally acknowledged I was a libertarian I was shocked to death when I realized most libertarians did not agree with me.

Here's a nice article called the libertarian case against intellectual property, addressed to those who already accept libertarianism.

Just food for thought--I read this years ago and found it pretty interesting. I just skimmed it again but didn't spend the time to read it.

The Libertarian Case Against IP

However, it's a big win for Lindows. They get $20 million just for changing their domain name and company name. It's pretty clear that MS would have lost this case. You don't get trademarks to everything that even sounds like what you have a trademark to.

As a libertarian, I'm against trademarks, tradesecrets, patents, and copyrights to begin with. See the following articles:

Against Intellectual Property. Kinsella, Stephan.

Do patents and copyrights undermine private property?

Patents and Copyrights: Do the Benefits Exceed the Costs? Cole, Julio H.

Government and Microsoft: A Libertarian View on Monopolies. Rideau, François-René.

Against Intellectual Property. Martin, Brian.

The Libertarian Case Against Intellectual Property Rights. Long, Roderick T.

Did you even read what I wrote?

First off, you're not a libertarian.

Sure I am. I'm currently a minarchist libertarian, but learning towards anarchist, also known as anarcho-capitalist.

There's more than one kind of libertarian, you know. Those who, like me, disagree with intellectual property laws are still a minority within the movement, but we are a significant minority. Here's a good discussion of the issue. Here's some more perspective. Saying libertarians are all agreed on the issue and that I'm not a libertarian because of my position on this is a misrepresentation. As Eric Raymond says, the non-coercion principle is about the only thing all libertarians agree on.

Secondly, a basic government is needed to protect property rights (that's a tenent of Libertariansim)

You're dismissing an entire branch of libertarianism, there. Anarcho-libertarians do not believe a basic government is needed, at all, or believe that government itself should be demonopolized (allowing a choice between any number of independent governments in a geographic area, or starting your own). Now, most of the ones I hear from still seem to believe in intellectual property, but I'm at a loss as to how intellectual property law is to be enforced in anarchy.

Furthermore, as I said in my post (did you read it?), I do not believe "intellectual property" is a property right. Nowhere in our legal code is it acknowledged as a right; it is a gift from the public encoded in the Constitution NOT because people have an "inherent right" to their ideas, but in order to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. (Did you read the Constitution?)

Your assumption is that everybody wants to code for free, which is utter bullshit.

Where did I say that? Strawman, or else you're reading somebody else's post.

I don't code for free, but I don't produce proprietary software, either. Something like 70% or more of the coding industry is not jobs for software makers like Microsoft or your favorite game company but coding custom software that is only of interest to one particular company. This will never go away; intellectual property laws have zero bearing on whether this kind of work needs to be done or not. Furthermore, removing the government-monopoly grant of intellectual property would radically change the software industry but not destroy it. Free software is demonstrating that. We are slowly approaching the point where, even with the protection of the government grant of exclusive rights "for a time," proprietary software will be unable to compete on price, features, performance, or TCO with Free software. That's the point of the whole article from Tocqueville! They see Free software as a neutron bomb that will "kill" the industry. What it will do is not kill it, but change it forever. There will still be money to be made in Free software. And even if not, people still have the right to give their "intellectual property" away for free, so this change is going to happen anyway.

How do you propose protecting the rights of people who develop software and want to sell it?

I do not believe anyone has a right to a profit at any particular business model, nor do I believe anyone has an exclusive right to an idea they have originated, thus I do not propose protecting these alleged "rights." (I do, of course, believe in protecting all the same rights for everybody, so they'd have the same basic rights as you and me.)

Meanwhile, it's not impossible to make money selling Free software. Why don't you do some reading some time?

so all software development is in the hands of people who happen to have the time and mone

Hmmm. Now with even more hyperlinkability: The Libertarian Case Against Intellectual Property Rights.

Do us all a favor and use the MIT license or something similar. The GPL has nothing to do with freedom. Roderick Long speaks the truth when he explains that selling someone else's work without their permission is NOT a violation of their rights. Instead he describes it as "tacky".

It will be funny as hell if the Geek's perfect story (LoTR) is the vehicle for tearing down the dumb-geeks' copyright theft networks...

Interestingly, there's an article from a libertarian viewpoint about why IP is unnecessary which uses Tolkien's works in several examples.

Anarchy in the sense of "violent chaos/civil war" that is the meaning used in your articles is not seen as a good thing by any one except the occasional mercenary.

Anarchy in the sense of lack of a government is a different matter altogether. The brutal governemnt repression in Zimbabwe etc are examples of the exact opposite of that. Though actually present day Somalia is seen by many anarchists as a promising experiment

Many thoughtful articles about Somalia, Iceland and other interesing societies here: Anarchy without chaos.

This is mostly the anarcho-capitalist angle. Not sure where the Kropotkin people are on this.

> Intellectual property is fundamental to the peaceful progress of such societies and, without them, everything does break down to the very concept of "might makes right" that RMS claims to fear now.

And your proof is ... ?

Methinks you need to read:

Against IP

The Libertarian Case Against Intellectual Property Rights

> The renaissance, the richest period of exploration and innovation in human history happened
> when the controls imposed by the Catholic church started to break down and both religous and scientific information began to flow freely.

The next renaissance will be when the mass population realizes and accepts that intellectual property rights are neither. (Another interesting read is Intellectual Monopoly Laws versus True Property Rights) The scientific and mathematical community learnt this years ago. They publish formulas, constants, and theories in the name of progress.

Does that mean I'm against copyright? No. But I shouldn't need copyright to tell me that I should respect the author's distribution plans.

i.e.
An audio CD contains JUST numbers. It's illegal to share numbers now?? That doesn't make much sense. What's next, patenting numbers? Oh wait, I forgot that already happened.

The artists convert their time and expressions into a message that can be cheaply (and efficiently) be copied. The problem is how can we make it convient (and cheap) for the majority* of people to pay and reimburse the artists. DRM does nothing to solve that problem.

The other root issue is, when I "purchase" a song, am I given the right to make "unlimited backups" ? Do we need laws to dictate what number is morally and ethically alright?

* There will always be people who want everything for free. But I believe the majority of people are willing to pay for a tangible product, as long as the price is right.

I won't fall apart (theoretically). However, the VLAA is competing against the EFF/FSF Legal Society in a free market. It may very well be true that the EFLS beats out the VLAA for access to the consumers' pocketbooks.

It is a free nation, after all. If no one wants copyright-like systems, they will not happen. But I would suspect that you will have a mixture of both. Some real and virtual communities may go with a copyright-less system, and co-exist with those advocating a copyright system.

if they can copy it easily (without the threat of jail) they will.

To quote from the Hammer article: "The cheater faces free enterprise. A cheater can get away with a 50 cent theft only until an entrepreneur invents a 40 cent way to catch him."

Also interesting is this quote: "Even though contract and technology will work at their best in a free nation, some efforts to restrict the copying of intellectual products will not pay for themselves. This economic reality, I suggest, will determine the extent of intellectual property rights."

In a free nation a copyright-like system can exist. But it most certainly will NOT be like the present system of statist copyrights.

Postscript: I see that the LNF site at least is now up and running. I would suggest the looking at the following articles (which are both pro and con copyright):

The Libertarian Case Against Intellectual Property Rights
Intellectual Property Rights Viewed As Contracts
The Intellectual Property Debate
...and...
Ideas As Property"

I won't fall apart (theoretically). However, the VLAA is competing against the EFF/FSF Legal Society in a free market. It may very well be true that the EFLS beats out the VLAA for access to the consumers' pocketbooks.

It is a free nation, after all. If no one wants copyright-like systems, they will not happen. But I would suspect that you will have a mixture of both. Some real and virtual communities may go with a copyright-less system, and co-exist with those advocating a copyright system.

if they can copy it easily (without the threat of jail) they will.

To quote from the Hammer article: "The cheater faces free enterprise. A cheater can get away with a 50 cent theft only until an entrepreneur invents a 40 cent way to catch him."

Also interesting is this quote: "Even though contract and technology will work at their best in a free nation, some efforts to restrict the copying of intellectual products will not pay for themselves. This economic reality, I suggest, will determine the extent of intellectual property rights."

In a free nation a copyright-like system can exist. But it most certainly will NOT be like the present system of statist copyrights.

Postscript: I see that the LNF site at least is now up and running. I would suggest the looking at the following articles (which are both pro and con copyright):

The Libertarian Case Against Intellectual Property Rights
Intellectual Property Rights Viewed As Contracts
The Intellectual Property Debate
...and...
Ideas As Property"

I won't fall apart (theoretically). However, the VLAA is competing against the EFF/FSF Legal Society in a free market. It may very well be true that the EFLS beats out the VLAA for access to the consumers' pocketbooks.

It is a free nation, after all. If no one wants copyright-like systems, they will not happen. But I would suspect that you will have a mixture of both. Some real and virtual communities may go with a copyright-less system, and co-exist with those advocating a copyright system.

if they can copy it easily (without the threat of jail) they will.

To quote from the Hammer article: "The cheater faces free enterprise. A cheater can get away with a 50 cent theft only until an entrepreneur invents a 40 cent way to catch him."

Also interesting is this quote: "Even though contract and technology will work at their best in a free nation, some efforts to restrict the copying of intellectual products will not pay for themselves. This economic reality, I suggest, will determine the extent of intellectual property rights."

In a free nation a copyright-like system can exist. But it most certainly will NOT be like the present system of statist copyrights.

Postscript: I see that the LNF site at least is now up and running. I would suggest the looking at the following articles (which are both pro and con copyright):

The Libertarian Case Against Intellectual Property Rights
Intellectual Property Rights Viewed As Contracts
The Intellectual Property Debate
...and...
Ideas As Property"

I won't fall apart (theoretically). However, the VLAA is competing against the EFF/FSF Legal Society in a free market. It may very well be true that the EFLS beats out the VLAA for access to the consumers' pocketbooks.

It is a free nation, after all. If no one wants copyright-like systems, they will not happen. But I would suspect that you will have a mixture of both. Some real and virtual communities may go with a copyright-less system, and co-exist with those advocating a copyright system.

if they can copy it easily (without the threat of jail) they will.

To quote from the Hammer article: "The cheater faces free enterprise. A cheater can get away with a 50 cent theft only until an entrepreneur invents a 40 cent way to catch him."

Also interesting is this quote: "Even though contract and technology will work at their best in a free nation, some efforts to restrict the copying of intellectual products will not pay for themselves. This economic reality, I suggest, will determine the extent of intellectual property rights."

In a free nation a copyright-like system can exist. But it most certainly will NOT be like the present system of statist copyrights.

Postscript: I see that the LNF site at least is now up and running. I would suggest the looking at the following articles (which are both pro and con copyright):

The Libertarian Case Against Intellectual Property Rights
Intellectual Property Rights Viewed As Contracts
The Intellectual Property Debate
...and...
Ideas As Property"