[PoignardAzur]

I don't think that's unreasonable. If you don't want to make your creative work available, you shouldn't get to have access to the state's violence to prevent anyone else from making it available.

Copyright is an inherently coercive concept. That coercion should come with responsibilities, or else (current situation) it's just another rent for corporations to extract.

[dragonwriter]

> Copyright is an inherently coercive concept.

Copyright is no more “an inherently coercive concept” than is every other form of property.

[PoignardAzur]

No, it's more coercive. If I own a bagpack, that means people can't break into my house and beat me up to get my bagpack. If I own a song, that means I can stop anyone else in the world from publicly singing the song at my leisure. One is much more coercive than the other.

[yetihehe]

Maybe, but property is typically an item, which you can't easily copy. Copyright is for items which are easily copied. So, it not the same. If you download a car it's different than stealing it, because original owner of car still has the car.