I have seen that several have responded already, but for a column-length (i.e. digestable but still long enough to present the case) explanation, this is one of my key and first writeups:
"No public cost or new tax is involved. All the infrastructure is already in place. The technology has been developed, and the tools are deployed: all we have to do is lift the ban on using them."
Nice. Now I'd love to read a followup that discusses how to address the tragedy of the commons problem that such a lift of the ban would clearly lead to.
I thunk one could start by arguing that the benefits of universal access to the sum total of human knowledge and creative expression to date, combined with the surge in derived/remixed/mashed-up works, would outweigh the short term reduction in new works while society figures out a new way to encourage creation.
Nice. Now I'd love to read a followup that discusses how to address the tragedy of the commons problem that such a lift of the ban would clearly lead to.