Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze
Do you believe that prior agreements matter, Giggleton?
A writer who lives under a government which deems all property to be theft might not entertain expectations of ownership, and so might agree to the condition you wish to impose (if only by your stating that non-ownership is the natural course of the flow of information -- you're still imposing that decision).
But what about a writer whose decision to create a work of fiction was predicated on the established condition (in that society, under that government) that the reader must pay for their copy of that work? The writer has been deceived if the work is then treated as free. If, in a capitalist society, a peasant toiling in the field must be paid by the person who benefits from their work, then why should a writer not depend on the same agreement? The courts are full of unpaid workers and deadbeat employers.
Just because the laws says that you have to pay for a copy does not mean that the copy belongs to the creator. It is obvious that with current laws the work does not belong to the creator in the way you are using the term here since after a while the creator loose control and people do not have to pay for copies.