[apersona]

> Ownership of "content" is a legal fiction invented to give states more control over creativity.

1. I hate the argument of "legal fiction" because the whole concept of law itself is a "fiction" invented that gives states more control. But I imagine you wouldn't want to live in a "lawless" society, would you?

2. Can you please explain how ownership of content gives states more control over creativity? There are so many way better methods of control a state can do (state-approved media, just banning books, propaganda) that this sounds like a stretch.

3. Alot of mainstream media is underdog rebels beating an Empire, and ownership of content definitely stops the spread of that idea.

[jMyles]

1. I don't think that is necessarily so. We can look at the universe we're given for some obvious fundamental physical and mathematical laws. As sure as gravity, bytes can be copied. It's just part of the universe we live in. Legislation in resistance to that requires these complex legal fictions. I don't think all legal fictions are bad; but those that tell a story that plainly contradicts fundamental laws of mathematics seem to always produce unjust outcomes.

2. Of course states can outright ban content, but the facade of protecting the poor artist gives enormous political cover. Saying, "You can't create that content because it is subversive and likely to convince people that the state is superfluous in the internet age" is just a much more honest (and politically impossible) approach - saying instead "you can't create that because it infringers on someone else's property" makes it sound like there's an attempt to serve justice.

3. Can you say more about this?