> This argument is mildly ahistoric. You are probably right. I need to make a "The Essential Stephan Kinsella" because I probably got some of the details wrong

> This argument is mildly ahistoric. You are probably right. I need to make a "The Essential Stephan Kinsella" because I probably got some of the details wrong when he made that point but I can't quickly find exactly where I first him make it. I also think you are right that most people don't pay much attention to copyright at all (or many civil liberty matters--maybe 80% of people are passive in that regard? Not sure). I also can't actually speak to whether Stephan himself believes all these arguments. In the talk I am remembering he is saying _other lawyers_ were making the case that one could argue they could cross someone else's lawn because it was "Fair use". He may have been referencing that case in the UK you reference. This is good motivation for me to build an FAQ site or similar organizing his arguments (he's been making the case for 2 decades, so has quite a lot of intelligent material to go through).