Anyone can legally print copies of "A Midsummer Night's Dream" or just about any other work produced before 1800ish. Only one person is legally allowed to make copies of (or give others the right to make copies of) "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire" due to a legal 'right' granted by the government that this one person can tell everyone else they may not make copies. That's just about the textbook definition of a monopoly.

Independent to that there's also somewhat of a monopoly on the entire chain of distribution and promotion. There are plenty of singers better than Justin Beiber or Nicky Minaj, but they get the airplay because the radio stations play only what the major labels tell them to play.

@Cybertao:
>> What monopoly are you talking about? Who has a monopoly, and what do they have a monopoly doing? <<

As we've already explained, a copyright is a government-imposed monopoly on the copying of an artistic work. I think the understanding of copyright shared by everyone who supports the PP (except you) is best summed by an essay by this person:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html

or a book by this person:
http://www.stephankinsella.com/publications/

or this person:
http://www.uow.edu.au/~bmartin/pubs/98il/il03.html

or at our most copyright and "IP" tolerant, this person:
http://lessig.org/blog/2003/11/intellec ... perty.html

In order to have any chance of convincing us, you will need to take it up with those people, and convincingly win the argument. Good luck

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/08/q ... -trade-off

"The idea behind copyright is simple — it is supposed to be a balance in the service of the public interest. There's a trade-off: for accepting a restriction on certain speech, the public benefits from the production of more new creative works each year. That delicate equation is complicated by many factors, and the right policy should find the balance of copyright scope and duration, limitations and exceptions like fair use, and the appropriate remedies in case of infringement.

But in fact, copyright policies almost universally lack the serious cost-benefit analysis that must precede any evidence-based proposal. And indeed, while the unintended costs are clear to anybody who has observed abuse of, say, the DMCA takedown system, the evidence that these policies create incentives — or even prevent harm — is less forthcoming."

It's interesting you all conveniently ignore my point.

Richard Stallman and the like fight this 'monopoly' by not using it's products. A fundamental point none of you are willing to concede or have the balls to live by. You lot seem to think the world will be a better place when everyone can legally download The Dark Night Rises or the latest Rihanna album, which is hypocritically self-destructive as neither would exist in their current forms; they are products of their copyright licenses...just like GNU software is.

There is no monopoly. You have the freedom to choose or disregard products under restrictive copyright. This party isn't about freedom, it's about limiting choices available to others.

>> Richard Stallman and the like fight this 'monopoly' by not using it's products. <<

That's true of Stallman when it comes to software, yes.

>> You lot seem to think the world will be a better place when everyone can legally download The Dark Night Rises or the latest Rihanna album, which is hypocritically self-destructive as neither would exist in their current forms; <<

Sure, like all the top fashion designers only make their products because they are protected by copyright. Oh, hang on, no they're not! The only "IP" law used in fashion is the 'trademark', which AFAIK everybody involved in the PP or free culture generally supports. Otherwise, fashion is, and has always been a free culture:
http://www.ted.com/talks/johanna_blakle ... lture.html

Also, before you attempt to claim that fashion is a marginal industry compared to film, have a look at the graph in this article, which compares the total revenues of "IP"-protected creative industries to those of the non-"IP" protected ones:
http://lindamurraymlis.wordpress.com/ho ... -and-more/

>> they are products of their copyright licenses...just like GNU software is. <<

The developers of BSD-licensed software would beg to differ. The disappearance of copyright would make not one iota of difference to any software licensed under BSD-style license. Without copyright protection of source code, it would be perfectly legal to reverse engineer any software derived from GNU software to see how it works, and publicly release the changes to the code. So actually, GNU does not depend on copyright, it uses it to hack around itself via copyleft.

The GPL stipulates that source-code must be made available, and any derivatives must retain the GPL. That's copyright in action that has helped shape software released under that licence.
The BSD license does indeed make a great 'hack', though the term is heavily misused there. Once again, copyright is defined by the licence - that it's equal to having no copyright at all reaffirms my earlier point that the existence of copyright (no matter what licence options are available) doesn't stand in the way of products that don't want to enforce it. If you have such strong feelings about the mechanism, perhaps you should consider boycotting GPLed code and only use BSD and similar licences.
Otherwise, if you are going to nullify licences you don't like, you might as well pirate Windows and think about how that helps the cause.

How about a practical example of intellectual property and how it's existence drives development? Who likes ARM?
The ARM architecture has been doing better that ever lately. You'd be hard pressed to find a portable device that doesn't use one. Android and Apple tablets and phones alike use ARM. Hand-held consoles, cameras, TVs, GPS, a wide variety of devices make use of the technology. Even more use them as coprocessors. The much talked about Raspberry Pi is built around one.
Now, here's the kicker; ARM Holdings have never manufactured a processor. They licence their IP to other companies. Intel, Samsung, Texas Instruments, Atmel, Freescale, Nvidia, Qualcomm, STMicroelectronics and Renesas have all licensed the technology.
To strip ARM of their rights is to strip their licencees of shared development and technology. Without it, each manufacturer would be forced to develop and jealously guard their own. Inefficiently recreating each others work in different ways that would force software developers to learn the intricacies of each manufacturers hardware.
Those waiting in the wings to get a new ARM Surface with the objective of giving M$ the finger and installing open software will not only be paying a cut to M$ for the copy of Windows 8 that they won't use, ARM is getting around six cents for their IP as well.

Recognition of intellectual property is integral to a lot of development, even open-source which still needs mass produced hardware to run on at the very least. Ubuntu makes an awesome example of both structures working hand in hand to benefit each other. RMS is making grunting noises about Valve porting Steam to linux because their games are protected by DRM, but even he admits it will bring greater good to the open parts of the platform and improve linux/GNU as a whole.
He of course would like people to choose not to 'enslave' themselves by not using Valve's products. Cracking the DRM and pirating their games is still enslaving yourself to Valve's products; the motives and reasoning behind free software (or movies, books, games, TV, etc.) does not enable or justify using non-free software in your own terms.
We all do better when we all do better.

@Cybertao
>>The GPL stipulates that source-code must be made available, and any derivatives must retain the GPL. <<

That's true, it's called the 'copyleft' provision, but you've missed the point of why RMS created it, which was:

>> Without copyright protection of [any] source code, it would be perfectly legal to reverse engineer any [proprietary] software derived from GNU software to see how it works, and publicly release the changes to the code. <<

Without copyright on source code, there would be no need for copyleft.

Cybertao:
>> That's copyright in action that has helped shape software released under that licence. <<

Do you see why this is wrong now?

As for the BSD/MIT licenses (exluding the 4-clause, which almost nobody uses now), it essentially places the source code in the Public Domain, even in countries where the copyright laws do not allow authors to disavow their copyright. As such, it is functionally equivalent to CC0:
http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/

Can you see now why works under either of these licenses would be unaffected by any reform of copyright including its abolition?

>> How about a practical example of intellectual property and how it's existence drives development? Who likes ARM? <<

Again, proving Stallman's point that the nonsense phrase "intellectual property" creates confusion. The example you raise here defends Patent Law. This is as different from Copyright Law as it is from Trademark Law. Copyright could be abolished entirely, and it would make not one iota of difference to Patents or Trademarks.

As I said before, most free culture advocates support the use of Trademarks as a form of identification (although I'd venture that punishment for violation of Trademark should only apply to misleading commercial use, and only incur financial penalties, not loss of liberty), and only oppose Patent Law where it is applied to inappropriate fields like mathematics (incl. software) and life. To paraphrase Stallman; to oppose all three because you oppose one is to fall into the same confusion suffered by proponents of "IP".

>> Recognition of intellectual property is integral to a lot of development <<

Funny, that's not what the various development groups involved in the open hardware movement say:
CERN launches Open Hardware initiative: http://press.web.cern.ch/press/pressrel ... 8.11E.html
Open Hardware Repository: http://www.ohwr.org/
http://opencores.org/
http://www.openfirmware.org/

>> even open-source which still needs mass produced hardware to run on at the very least. <<

We use mass produced hardware because up until now it's what we've had to hand. The same way most of us used Windows for years until we found an alternative. As the Maker movement develops the capacity to make customized hardware, free code software will increasinly run on #8 wire hardware based on open hardware designs and made locally.

@Cybertao
>> the motives and reasoning behind free software (or movies, books, games, TV, etc.) does not enable or justify using non-free software in your own terms. <<

A few postings back I gave you links to various critics of copyright whose views inform the free culture movements, and the PPs. Despite coming from *very* different political perspectives, Stallman (left-liberal), Kinsella (libertarian capitalist), Martin (libertarian socialist), and Lessig (social democrat) all agree about what copyright is; a carefully-limited, government-imposed monopoly, which creates a temporary opportunity for private good (profit from royalties) in service of a public good (more publishing of creative works). Even Kinsella does not accept the definition of copyright as a form of "property", despite being a mouth-foaming advocate of property rights in nearly everything.

Your refusal to acknowledge the historical facts about the origin and purpose of copyright is the main stumbling block in having a constructive discussion about it with anyone else on these forums, and no amount of calling us "zealots" or "hypocrites" for refusing to buy into your historical revisionism is going to chance that. Sorry about that

Not at all. We all know many productions come about because of copyright law, or monopoly protection as you like to call it. The existence of copyright protects those productions and ensures more will be made under the same mechanism in the future.
I've clearly outlined how different licences allow flexibility for projects to develop in their own unique and specified way, and that licencing can effectively nullify licencing (as you insist on reproving to me repeatedly).
The zealots here would like to see that flexibility and definition stripped away. GPL derivatives won't have to release any of their code, CC licences will be annulled as there will be no need to even attribute the creator for derivatives. That removing those options will somehow force individuals into making more responsible choices as consumers and benefit everyone.
And ultimately, I've explained how content owners have a valid position in protecting their interests. Because it is their stuff we are talking about taking here; the owners of material released under CC, GPL, and BSD licences are happy for your to download and share their stuff. If you value the openness of the Internet then the best solution is to respect copyright and let their 'antiquated business model' collapse. But that's the content people really want, isn't it?

There is no doubt copyright legislation needs to be more balanced favour of social benefit, but the complete opposite being pushed here is anything but balanced and socially destructive rather than constructive. Copyright minimalists are no better or worse than maximalists. Both are preoccupied with what they perceive to be the most beneficial to themselves.