I have always believed that once someone puts their information out into the public then the copyright is no longer valid.  This is especially true of electronic media, once something goes out on the airwaves (which is public)  There is no contract between the copyright holder and anyone else.  Another point is say I write a book and I sell someone else the book with the full understanding that there is an non disclosure agreement between myself and the reader and the reader may not sell or give that book to anyone else.  As long as that is disclosed and the reader agrees then you have IP.  The only problem with that is you wouldn't sell many books under this arrangement!

Great article on a subject seldom addressed as Kinsella has. I see a distressing tendency to assign intellectual property rights to mere thoughts or expressions, which tend to ciminalize anyone else raising those thoughts or expressions.  Just look at the individual words and phrases being copyrighted! How long will it be before we all must get permission from hordes of corporate lawyers just to use any word found in the dictionary? Some people can't even use their own name in commerce without drawing a lawsuit from the likes of McDonald's, or even something clearly different but similar.  Thinking is a right and its content should be with freedom of conscience, with freedom of expression. Worldly law should be restrained to physical parameters and not the spiritual ones.  I applaud Kinsella's work.   

This article is positive proof that some people are not so much "rational" as they are "rationalizing." 

Destroy intellectual property; in this case copyrights, and you destroy any incentive to create. An individual can spend a year or more creating a novel, and the moneys earned from the sale of that novel go to pay for the time and effort the author spent in its creation: paying the author 's expenses, the food, clothing, shelter, and other things the author needed to support his/her life during the creation process.

It's the same with invention and manufacturing:

 Let’s say that I spend a year or more designing and perfecting some sort of mechanical gizmo. I came up with an idea and spent a portion of my life turning that idea into physical form. I then license its production to someone else — for a fee. A “cut of the take,” so to speak.

The “cut of the take” from the sale of this gizmo is what pays for the time, trouble, and the effort it took me to create it. And that “cut of the take,” that commission (or royalty) is what pays for my idea as well.

Now . . . let’s say that someone bought one of these gizmo’s and began to produce it, and sell it himself.

He did not come up with the idea, nor did he go through the trouble of turning that idea into physical form, and of developing and perfecting that idea.

He just bought one and copied it.

If that sort of thing became common-place, it would ultimately destroy any incentive to create.

Why go devote effort, time, and trouble, to create something if it is of no benefit to you?

Sure there’s an ego factor involved, (look what I did!) but how much would that count if you couldn’t pay your bills with the result?

It’s exactly the same when it comes to "intellectual property."

Another interesting view on the subject:

"FIGHTING WITH TEENAGERS: A COPYRIGHT STORY"

http://www.jasonrobertbrown.com/weblog/2010/06/fighting_with_teenagers_a_copy.php 

Are there really people dumb enough to believe that there would be "no incentive for innovation" without IP? Please, any one out there believes this, please tell me what was the motivation for innovation before IP?