[etfb]

I can understand where you're coming from, but I think you lack empathy and experience. If you like, send me a copy of every piece of creative work you've ever produced -- songs, poems, articles, computer programs, graphics, whatever -- and I'll just go ahead and post it wherever I want without giving you any attribution. If you can tell me you're OK with that, I'll modify my opinion: rather than saying you lack empathy, I'll say you have a very different worldview than anyone I know, and I'll acknowledge that, under your worldview, your opinion is entirely consistent and reasonable.

[slowpoke]

>I'll just go ahead and post it wherever I want without giving you any attribution

Actually, I use the WTFPL[1] for a lot of code I produce, so yes, you could do that, though it wouldn't be nice to do that.

My opinion is that copyright should not exist. While I can't demand copies from anyone, I don't think anyone has a right to stop me from sharing anything that I have access to, either. Putting things on the internet counts as giving me access. I simply reject the notion that people should be able to control the distribution of digital data. It's both illogical to assert ownership of something abstract and harmful to society at large.

On the other hand, I think people should be credited for their work (if they want). But that's a social issue and not one that can be solved by laws. Look at the scientific community: plagiarism is highly frowned upon and proper attribution is required. And that's mostly by social pressure, not by laws.

So in short, my believe is "Give credit where credit is due, but don't try to tell others what they can or can't do.".

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTFPL

[etfb]

OK, I can see that your worldview differs from mine, but I can't reconcile the last part of your first sentence ("... though it wouldn't be nice to do that") with the rest of your comment. If copyright -- by which I mean the right to copy, not necessarily any laws pertaining to that right -- did not exist, there would be no justification in saying it "wouldn't be nice" to ignore it. It's like: if I didn't like redheads, and I said I didn't want to see any out my window, but I acknowledged that there is and should be no law restricting them, then clearly I'm being unreasonable somewhere along the line.

[slowpoke]

You're misunderstanding the "it's not nice" part. For example, it's not against the law to be (somewhat) rude, either - but it's not nice. As I pointed out, the whole attribution thing is something that needs to be addressed on a social level, not enforced by law.

And in general, I don't think it's an unreasonable world-view to dislike something, but be against regulating it. For example, I'm vehemently against right-wing ideology and fascism, but I still would not want laws restricting nazis to voice their misguided opinions, because everybody is entitled to free speech. That's not being unreasonable, that's being consistent.

[chc]

Do you earn your living off this WTFPL software?