You’ve covered many interesting aspects related to the current situation with ‘copyright’ and it’s current perception. I would not argue with that because you’v

You’ve covered many interesting aspects related to the current situation with ‘copyright’ and it’s current perception. I would not argue with that because you’ve done it very well. It describes what we have at the moment more or less. Yet one thing is missing: the connection between ownership and copy! The link is not there. Those are different things while by some ‘magic’ reasons are used interchangeably. I suspect there are no justified reasons for that, I didn’t see so far and I think there is a price to pay for the ‘magic’ in definitions. > All you've said so far is that you don't like it, but your arguments have been vague about why. Actually I didn’t. It’s not about me liking it or not. It’s about missing the very “why” in definition itself in the first place which usually leads to abuses. It seems there is a flaw in definition that I can spot and I merely pointing out at it. >I really think the missing steps in your understanding is that the missing "magic" is simply "because we decided it's that way", While there are could be missing steps in my understanding. I suspect there are missing steps in definition itself or understanding by those who invented the term. (let’s not suggest something worse: intentional deceiving ). The idea itself does not appear as too complex but rather made complex to hide the obvious flaw in it. > That is, what is your definition of a "right", why is ownership not a right, and why can't we decide that creator may have the limited ability to control how others may make copies of a work, and describe that through the term "copyright". We cam explain many things by saying: “Because it is historically so or culturally accepted”. I am questioning the reasons behind it, because we cannot just define that gravity is not there and say it’s a cultural thing to define, and meanwhile we’ll just ignore it. There are consequences to that and some of the consequences of ‘copyright’ we already observe. Youtubers for instance complain about oppression and abusing them and not only them. So I am questioning is there something ‘real’ behind ‘copyright’ and is it worth protecting like ‘a saint cow’ with enormous efforts. Should we kill creativity of individuals in society just for the sake of something that doesn’t even have a proper logic behind it.