Guest, if you want me to pick up something from what you write, it would be helpful if you STATE it, rather than expect me to read your mind (or implications, which is the same thing). This was the bullsh*t my ex-wife was always playing on me, and it still doesn't go down well. Don't blame ME for not picking up YOUR non-stated distinction. Either state it, and we can discuss it, or let it go. But don't expect others to read your mind.

Your discussion said nothing about maximal vs. limited copyright. You appeared to be blasting copyrights in general, and indeed a public right to an ever-growing domain of artistic works seems in odds with the very existence of copyright laws. Please, rather than just muddying the waters with technical mumbo-jumbo, describe where you would draw the line. If you are not in favor of abolishing copyright, and yet are against "maximalist" copyright, where is the line? How can the state draw it? Or if not the state, who?

Finally, you fail to indicate how you would distinguish works of art from manufactured goods or anything else created for consumption. Until you can draw a line there, you will be open to the charge that you don't believe creators should be compensated, or FULLY compensated at any rate, for their creations.

Let's discuss this rather than just use catch-phrases to avoid intelligent conversation.

Alex
O..O
=o=