Let's talk about ownership in a broader sense. In practice, one cannot effectively own (retain possession of) something without some combination of physical capability or coercion (or threat of coercion). Meaning: maintaining ownership of anything (physical or otherwise) often depends on the rule of law.
You can't monopolize an idea.
Copyright law is a prescription, not a description. Copyright law demands that everyone play along with the lie that is intellectual monopoly. The effectiveness of that demand depends on how well it can be enforced.
Playing pretend during the age of the printing press may have been easy enough to coordinate, but it's practically impossible here in the digital age.
If we were to increase enforcement to the point of effectiveness, then what society would be left to participate? Surely not a society I am keen to be a part of.
> Copyright law demands that everyone play along with the lie that is intellectual monopoly.
Saying "lie" suggests willful deception. Perhaps you mean "socially constructed"? Combined with "playing pretend" makes it read a bit like a rant.
> Then let's use a more precise term that is also present in law: monopoly.
Ok, in law and economics, the core idea of monopoly has to do with dominant market power that crowds out the existence of others. But your other uses of "monopoly" don't match that. For example, you talk about ideas and "intellectual monopoly". What do you mean?
It seems like some of your uses of "monopoly" are not about markets but instead are closer to the idea of retaining sole ownership.
> If we were to increase enforcement to the point of effectiveness, then what society would be left to participate? Surely not a society I am keen to be a part of.
It appears you've already presupposed how things would play out, but I'm not convinced. What is your metric of effectiveness? A scale is better than some arbitrary threshold.
Have you compared copyright laws and enforcement of the U.S. versus others?
How far would you go: would you say that i.e. society would be better off without copyright law? By what standard?
I most certainly do mean to call out copyright as willful, but it's not a deception, at least not a successful one: everyone knows it is false. That's why it's enforced by law! Instead of people being deceived, people must instead pretend to be so. Each of us must behave as if the very concept of Micky Mouse is immortal and immutable; and if we don't, the law will punish accordingly.
Every film on Netflix, every song on Spotify, etc. can obviously be copied any number of times by any number of people at any place on Earth. We are all acutely aware of this fact, but copyright tells us, "Pretend you can't, or get prosecuted."
So is it truly effective? Millions of people are not playing along. Millions of artists are honestly trying to participate in this market, and the market is failing them. Is that because we need more people to play along? Rightsholders like the MPAA say that piracy is theft, and that every copy that isn't paid for is a direct cost to their business. How many of us are truly willing to pretend that far?
What if we all just stopped? Would art suddenly be unprofitable for everyone, including the lucky few who turn a profit today? I don't believe that for a second.
The only argument I have ever heard in favor of copyright is this: Every artist deserves a living. I have seen time and time again real living artists fail to earn a living from their copyright. I have seen time and time again real living artists share their work for free, choosing to make their living by more stable means.
Every person living deserves a living. Fix that, and we will fix the problem copyright pretends to solve, and more.
Consider instead the term "legal fiction", it's not so derogatory.
