Marvelous? It is an interesting idea, yes, but if even Landes & Posner express clear doubt over whether it does any good overall, one ought not overdo it.

> It has allowed value to accrue to things that were actually valuable while also being intangible.

It allowed price to be given to them, but since that detracts from the value we can immediately see it is not such a clearly good proposition -- it is very questionable.

Copyright gets by to a large degree on a conservative mind-set. It is almost impossible to see alternative ideas, but very easy to appreciate what actually exists. Caution is not all wrong, but when the greatest information tech in history has recently been invented, one would think the situation is more about turning the clock forward not back.

"It allowed price to be given to them, but since that detracts from the value we can immediately see it is not such a clearly good proposition -- it is very questionable."

Something can only be priced because it has value already.

As for seeing alternative ideas: while hardly a conservative - I think it's a great development to allow ideas to be monetized. If someone has an alternative system to copyright that can do that I am truly all-ears . . .

What I find illogical is this idea that we should move forward to a world where we run a knowledge-based economy but that that knowledge shouldn't have any monetary value. Are we going to barter ideas between one another to make ends meet? I'd love to hear how . . .

> Something can only be priced because it has value already.

You're missing the point. Ideas are invaluable. Assigning them a price detracts that value.

> I think it's a great development to allow ideas to be monetized.

The idea that everything needs to be monetize-able to be worth investing in/spending time on is, for lack of better words, a disease.

> What I find illogical is this idea that we should move forward to a world where we run a knowledge-based economy but that that knowledge shouldn't have any monetary value.

How is this illogical? Knowledge had no monetary value to being with, because it's worth more than any amount of money.

Also, we're not going to run a "knowledge-based economy". We're going to move to a knowledge-based society that most likely will depend on a service-based economy in which everyone can profit off each other's innovations, allowing for incremental development that will speed up progress by magnitudes.

> Are we going to barter ideas between one another to make ends meet? I'd love to hear how . . .

But that's exactly what we're doing right now (licensing etc), and which you rightly point out is illogical to the point of utter absurdness.

> The notion that one has rights to their own ideas is a marvelous development of liberal productive societies

If by "liberal productive society" you mean "capitalism", then yes, copyright is indeed a capitalistic invention. Only in capitalism could the notion of "owning" something which by its very definition is impossible to own remotely make any sense at all.

> It has allowed value to accrue to things that were actually valuable while also being intangible.

Ideas had value even before someone decided that you have to be able to assign them a monetary price. They were invaluable, by virtue of being free. The compulsive need of capitalism to monetize everything has actually destroyed the true value of ideas. We "pirates" fight to restore that value.

> The mere existence of art and innovation is not enough to make up for the destruction of rights to one's own work or ideas.

Except we aren't destroying anything. We're restoring it to the way it's supposed to be. As I mentioned in the previous paragraph, the truly destructive thing is copyright.

> Putting the progress of art and innovation solely in the hands of hobbyists is like saying the start-up world will work fine if no one gets funding anymore because people can always code stuff themselves at home on the weekend.

First, abolishing copyright (and by extension, intellectual property - which is not to be confused) does not mean you put progress into the hands of "hobbyists". We're just taking it out of the hands of monopolists, for the good of everyone.

Second, you're committing a very common fallacy made by pro-copyright people: you assert that copyright is essential to do business. It isn't.

Third, you imply that we have to care that business models will fail. They do all the time. Now, I ask why a business model that relies entirely on artificially constructed, nonsensical laws has any right to exist in the first place?

> But to dismiss rights out-of-hand is throwing the baby out with the bathwater and choosing a very weird solution [turning back the clock] to a very modern problem.

And another fallacy. You assert that since copyright was invented at some point, it was progress, and that abolishing it again will therefore be a step back. It's the opposite actually. The invention (and implementation) of copyright was a step back in the first place, so abolishing it will bring us back to where we are supposed to be.

I will take one point: the idea that by abolishing copyright you are taking progress out of the hands of monopolies. Copyright is the power that gives the 'little man' the ability to do that already. Copyright puts the power/value of an idea on a level playing field with the already-powerful and already-valuable.

Abolishing copyright would make the weak even weaker. The only proof one needs to see is that in the music business - where I come from - there has been a de facto absence of copyright protection for a decade now.

It hasn't done away with the 'monopolies' or large corporations.

It hasn't made artists any richer.

It has made it much more difficult for an artist to make money through sale of their primary product.

It has weakened artist positions to the point that they no longer only have to give up a lot of revenue on album sales - which was always they case; the new standard is the 360 deal that lets record and management companies tap into the entire income stream of an artist.

So, sorry, ten years in throwing copyright out has actually created the opposite effects that you predict.

> Copyright is the power that gives the 'little man' the ability to do that already.

I'm really sorry, but in what world do you live? Copyright is abused by the big corporations to secure monopolies, and isn't, wasn't and won't ever be meant for artists. It's the same argument as with patents, really. The myth that they serve to protect the poor, small man is a lie spread and maintained by exactly those who profit from them - the big corporations.

> The only proof one needs to see is that in the music business - where I come from - there has been a de facto absence of copyright protection for a decade now.

And what "music business" would that be? I only see copyright getting more draconian by the year.

> It has made it much more difficult for an artist to make money through sale of their primary product.

Well, maybe you should reconsider what your "primary product" is. A musician is a performer, first and foremost, and a concert is a service. There's also merchandise, which are tangible goods.

>album sales

Album sales have been dead for years now. Why are you trying to cling to a dead distribution/business model?

Copyright is not about ownership of ideas or works; it is about guaranteeing remuneration of artists to permit them to create art without being supported by a patron.