There are reasons that using nothing but the Copyheart message to "free" a work is a bad idea. There are very good reasons to be opposed to the copyright regim

There are reasons that using nothing but the Copyheart message to "free" a work is a bad idea. There are very good reasons to be opposed to the copyright regime under which we labor, however. As someone whose professional life has been primarily in the realm of copyrightable works for years, I can attest to at least my own circumstances being such that I would be better off if my professional works were not subject to copyright restrictions -- and those who most directly benefited from them (employers, clients, et cetera) would not have been harmed by that, either. In fact, the rote enforcement of copyrights by some who have paid for my works impose greater costs on them than letting the copyright infringers out there carry on unmolested (edit: such copyright infringers potentially including me, if I were to try to rehabilitate articles that had been left to die in unmaintained parts of tech content sites long after publication). This is of course not always the case. Different business models have different economic trade-offs. The ethical and even practical arguments against our strict system of copyrights are many and varied, however, and many of them are quite compelling, including arguments related to artist obscurity vs. profits (see any number of authors and recording artists who point out that the major threat to an artist's livelihood is obscurity, not copyright infringement), imperialistic dominance of international markets (Information Feudalism is a well-researched book by academic experts spanning close to two decades' worth of intensive work), and even the overall benefit to humanity of free reuse of works (see Advancement Through License Simplicity -- http://univacc.net/?page=license_simplicity_1 http://univacc.net/?page=license_simplicity_1 -- for one such argument). I don't want to waste too much of my time on an Internet Argument, but I figured I'd throw this stuff out there. Rational and compelling arguments against copyright, or at least against strict copyright with any resemblance to what currently applies, do exist.