I like to view copyright as a short-circuit path to fast promise-exchanges of the following form: "I have a really interesting piece of information. In fact, I

I like to view copyright as a short-circuit path to fast promise-exchanges of the following form: "I have a really interesting piece of information. In fact, I create this information, and it takes a lot of work. For whatever reason, you want the information. I'm happy to share it with you, for a price far lower than the cost of creation, but only if you promise not to tell anyone else." Copyright is a short-circuit process whereby anyone who has ever received the information in whatever way (including hearing/seeing it in public) is legally treated as though they agreed to the above terms. I think that some kind of "I'll give you info X if you promise not to redistribute it" structure is not a priori a bad idea. Obviously, it is unclear that those promises would be upheld in practice ... but at that point I believe it becomes a market question of whether people are willing to live up to their promises and not a question of bad policy. Copyright, as an approximation to such a structure, is fundamentally problematic because it attempts to make the above exchange work without: a) having to trust people (the law is used to scare them into behaving) b) the receivers of the information having felt like they made a valuable promise in return for the valuable information (the receivers are told they are getting something that is "owned" as opposed to merely "not public knowledge")