Suppose "c" were true. I invest considerable time, effort, and (possibly) talent to produce a creative work -- let's say a novel. My neighbor purchases my nov

Suppose "c" were true. I invest considerable time, effort, and (possibly) talent to produce a creative work -- let's say a novel. My neighbor purchases my novel and then makes a free copy available to anyone who wants one. Naturally, getting it for free is better than having to pay for it, and so everyone who wants a copy gets theirs for free from my neighbor. And so I sell a total of one copy -- then my book effectively ends up in the public domain. Does it make financial sense for me to write novels under this system? Absolutely not! Creators become disincentivized from producing creative works. The public good suffers as a result. Jefferson's point was that in most cases, Person A's sharing of an idea with Person B doesn't take away anything from Person A. If I know how to tie a necktie and you don't, my teaching you how to tie a necktie doesn't deprive me of that knowledge. It just puts more knowledge into the world, which is a good thing. But there are certainly cases where this is not true. If I run a business and I freely share all my trade secrets with my direct competitor, and they use that knowledge to drive me out of business, that's bad, and it's not what Jefferson is talking about. Similarly, if I'm a creator and depend on sales of my creative works to make a living, giving away all my creative works for free means I've not only screwed myself over, but also I can't continue to produce more creative works, which deprives the public of their benefit. That's why "c" doesn't appear plainly true to me. Copyright is meant to advance the arts and sciences by giving creators a mechanism to be compensated for their efforts for a period of time, while also protecting the public interest by limiting that period of time. Both of those considerations need to be balanced.