[Tycho]

That's just like a really inefficient way of achieving the same goal (ie. getting the people who want it, to pay for it).

People have their priorities all wrong. You can get brilliant art/music/whatever for negligable prices. Or at least as much of it as is healthy to consume.

Removing copyright places a draconian burden on creativity, while only providing a slight real gain in accessability.

[hxa7241]

You imply the current way is more efficient, but how so?

The basic structure of copyright-based business is this: the creator expends effort up front, then hopes buyers will pay later. The information flow, or rather lack of it, introduces a large risk of producing what is not wanted. Also the copy restrictions necessarily raise prices far above the real marginal costs of near zero. That means there is a large potential value the public is prevented from getting.

Such a structure consumes a scarce resource -- creative effort -- wastefully, and restricts an abundant resource -- copyability of information -- needlessly.

That seems very much the opposite of economically efficient.