The writer doesn't seem to understand the concept of natural rights. They aren't inalienable because we declare them to be so, they are inalienable because it's

The writer doesn't seem to understand the concept of natural rights. They aren't inalienable because we declare them to be so, they are inalienable because it's actually impossible to deny people these rights. The First Amendment protects individual expression, for example, because it’s in society’s best interest to have a robust debate—not because each person has a right to say what he or she thinks simply by virtue of being human. In reality, by virtue of having the ability to speak, humans do have a right to say whatever they want. Oppressive regimes can certainly take steps to punish people for speaking their minds, but it's pretty difficult to stop someone from voicing an opinion in the first place. So the right to make copies was imagined by the Framers as a way to encourage the writing of books by individuals for the good of an educated citizenry. But, if you are a natural-rights person and you think that individual rights are inalienable, then you don’t recognize the priority of the public domain. You think that society has no claim on works created by individuals. Once an individual chooses to share an idea, anyone who has that idea can naturally share it. Copyright is not an inalienable right.