Look, copyright is folk laying claim to knowledge. Nobody can claim ownership of the things in our heads. We might want privacy of some things very personal to us, but 99% of what we think about does not belong to us, its a product of all of us put together, all the information and knowledge known to all humanity. What copyright does, by laying claim to knowledge or information, is scarcify it. Suddenly, only those with the money or privelige get to see it, and the rest of the population are left out.
Compare with energy slavery (Otherwise known as capitalism), the majority of humans don't get the energy they need to flourish, and only a very small few get what they need to even slightly flourish. This is the truth, if we all had unrestricted access to all the energy / all the money we could use, progress would be orders of magnitude higher than it is, or has every been in known history.
But even better, it would be creation rather than destruction.
No amount of pussy-footing around the topic of copyright can paint it any other way, it is motivated at its heart by the wish to make profit, and it is rewarded by profit, which is energy extracted from the planet, which is a hard truth never talked about so its a lie, an energy lie, which eventually destroys the planet, as we are seeing, it depends on energy gained by destruction. This is why its impossible to reverse entropy using extracted energy, so its impossible to reverse entropy by profit.
In other words its impossble to create, technically, by profit.
Since neither party in the for-profit agreement is aware, or made aware that the ulitmate consequence of the agreeement is to end the planet, all for-profit agreements are techinically null and void, because technically we can't have legal contracts built on lies.
I know a court would laugh at this, but that only shows how corrupt our legal system is. Its full of lies, because all of it is built on the base lie of profit.
Another law that tells us what to do about copyright is Metcalfe's law. What metcalfes law applies to is the exchange of information. Any obstruction to exchange of information is bad, it negatively impacts the value of any network to humanity as a whole. (Hence why also censorship is bad).
Historical information and knowldege, and art, are all forms of transferrable / copy-able information.
So we should see networks include all history of information, all of it has value to the collective, if it is actually information, and no human has the knowledge to know what is and is not information in advance, so we are none of us equipped to know what to chop and not to chop, we actually don't know what is and isn't information.
I don't see any similarly physical argument that supports copyright, other than maybe a gun that might be held to our heads, by the colonisers of information, saying "Its mine, and you are going to pay for it, right"?
