> [The problem is] the people expecting to make money with art. It's cool if you can. If you can't, then you're not entitled to laws or monopolies that protect

> [The problem is] the people expecting to make money with art. It's cool if you can. If you can't, then you're not entitled to laws or monopolies that protect your failed business modell. Agreed that there's no entitlement to laws or monopolies. And I grant you that some ultra-libertarians oppose any restriction on their personal economic freedom, citing moral reasons. But society sometimes decides, for pragmatic reasons, that it's a sensible bet to grant limited-term monopolies [1], in the hope that over the long term everyone will benefit. We see that in the Writings and Discoveries Clause, article I, section 8, clause 8 of the U.S. Constitution.[2] EDIT in response to comments: Just what monopolies to grant, and for how long, is of course the $64K question. It's been my observation that this is one of those issues where, for many people, where you stand depends on where you sit (or is it the other way around?) [1] Technically, "monopoly" is a misnomer when applied IP rights in the general case. In economics, the term refers to someone having a lock on access to goods or services for which there's no 'viable' substitute. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly. [2] http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section8 http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section8