If it costs you one billion dollars to discover a drug and then that drug can be sold by others making generics immediately for five cents then the drug will no

If it costs you one billion dollars to discover a drug and then that drug can be sold by others making generics immediately for five cents then the drug will not get created, the business model isn't viable. This kind of thing is what I mean by incentives. Even with modern IP laws you see this play out, if a drug is less marketable even with the IP protections it doesn't get made. If you write a book and that book can be immediately distributed or sold by others giving you nothing then the only people that will write books are people that have money and are willing to do it for free or donations (this is already a little true, but would be more extreme in a world without copyright). We want a society that empowers more people to create. Policy is not equivalent to physical laws like gravity. It turns out you can have property rights alongside patents and copyrights, we do. Just stating that you're correct like gravity isn't convincing. I could state my position is equivalent to gravity too. As far as the length of copyright, I agree and the link in my first comment goes into that. This is clearly an issue you're passionate about and have held for a long time, I can relate somewhat because I was more partial to some of those ideas when I was younger. I changed my mind when I read more about it. The reason the slavery bit bothers me is because it confuses the topic with an unrelated and especially terrible historical issue that's particularly provocative. I find that rhetorical style a sign of bad faith. This kind of thing plus the hashtags I generally dislike and find unpersuasive.