Huh? The public's right to a constantly growing public domain? Where in the Constitution is THAT stated? Is that in the WHO "human rights" decree? Or did you just make it up out of whole cloth?

And why just written material? On your logic, shouldn't the public have a right to manufactured goods without paying for them? Anti-theft laws, on your reading, become a "tax" on consumers for the benefit of manufacturers. This way madness lies.

Copyright law is the only way a creative artist has of protecting his investment in his work (or hers of course). Without such protection, the incentive to create and share art would be severely diminished. Why should the blacksmith, the manufacturer, the farmer have recompense for his labor, but not the artist? You envision a world where all labor is rewarded monetarily except art, and the artist becomes a de facto slave of the public's right to "an ever-expanding domain" of art.

I'm sorry, I just can't see it.

Alex
O..O
=o=