[hardcastle]

Originally Posted by Ken Maltby

Zero sum thinking, such as you are expressing, negates the idea of creation. "What you take I lose", and other redistributionist concepts make no sense in the context of copyright or patent.

I don't agree. Creation doesn't happen in vacuum. If we argue that creation is a process that creates something from nothing, then we've changed the playing field entirely. But that's not the case. Creation is as much remix as it is innovation, if not more so. As much as some content creators like to argue that they are a self-sufficient island, they are influenced and pull from ideas in the public domain and popular culture as much as anyone else.

The many have no right to forcibly take the fruits of any individual's labor.

The two concepts in this sentence highlight a distinct disagreement:

1) The concept of "the many" as a single opposing and monolithic force is a non-existent entity. They are not "the many," they are many disparate and sometimes conflicting but still agreeing points of self-interest. This group wields no power beside pure numbers, which is the fuel behind majority rule.

2) The concept of "rights" is created and enforced under majority rule decisions, and as such are entirely flexible based on what the majority decides. Back in the 1800's, it was deemed a "right" for a white man to forcibly take the fruits of a black man's labor. Both legally and morally, your statement is transitory.

The idea of copyright and patent is to provide a means for the creator to profit from the work of many who make copies of their creations, who, in turn also profit from the sale of the copies. All the parties involved need to be compensated for their efforts, for their to be a product that can be consumed, and there needs to be those willing to purchase, at a price that supports the costs of production. If the government or other collective force of society tries to force any of the elements of production to work without compensation that each element finds acceptable, the product suffers.

I don't disagree with this at all. Though I will note that what some parties consider reasonable compensation may not be feasible in the market. Instead of reassessing that compensation demand, those parties instead use their clout to legalize and enforce that compensation.

An author can sell the rights to what is unique to his manuscript, that doesn't give him, or those he sold his book to, the right to any similar book that another author may produce.

Ignoring, of course, that if your creation is too close to another work, that you may be held accountable in many jurisdictions. This is despite my notes on creation at the top of this post. Another example of creator self-interest overpowering the voices of the rest of the populace.