> In a universe with no copyright, arguments about its benefits would fall flat. They must not have, because we once lived in a universe without it, and now we

> In a universe with no copyright, arguments about its benefits would fall flat. They must not have, because we once lived in a universe without it, and now we don't. How do you suppose that happened? Similarly, when the US patent system was created, arguments very similar to mine were presented in its defense, even though patents did not already exist. They worked. The arguments in favor of the status quo predate the status quo, and were convincing in a world without the status quo. That's because they are good arguments. > Coming up with new concepts is obviously intuitive work - I've laid out what I see as a simple deeper abstraction behind copyright, which you've done nothing but ignore along with every other argument. Intuition is not a valid or convincing argument. It does not deserve to be considered.