Might want to read the comment I'm responding to:
"being an idealist doesn't give you the rights to delve into illegal behavior"
I find it obvious that there are situations when illegal behaviour is justified, perhaps even virtous or obligatory. I'd like to know why "being an idealist" is considered the only relevant factor.
As for copyright, I'm of the opinion that there exists no spirit world, and hence no spiritual labour, which means that immaterial rights lack foundation.
I mean 'The Right to Read' sets up a story environment where Copyright/IP is a form of tyranny. I view any form of overly broad copyright as a form of government enforced tyranny itself. This can be anywhere from terms that last lifetimes. The lack of counter enforcement against actors bring false claims. And allowing very generic/simple systems to be copyrighted thereby enacting massive rent seeking behavior across most of the population.
Authors have no trouble existing without copyright at all, let alone some weaker version of copyright.
Meanwhile, vanishingly few authors make a living at it, and not a lot more make beer money. It’s a pursuit that barely pays as it is, yet many books are written.
Patents and copyright are a government granted right to a limited term monopoly, which is unique in that it is a right that had to be explicitly granted, because it was not assumed to be an unenumerated right, and the authors of the US constitution were generally opposed to government granted monopolies.
It is also unique in that mere legislation could reduce the term of this right to an arbitrarily short duration. That's not how any other right works. Also unique is that other rights can't expire in your lifetime, and that the right is assignable.
Ownership of a work and monopoly are not the same thing. Monopoly implies control of an industry or a class of goods. Owning the rights to one book doesn't mean I own all books (which would be a monopoly on books), any more than owning a house gives me a monopoly on housing.
Copyright empowers Congress to make a law giving you a limited term monopoly on your words or other creations. Patents do a similar for an invention. Both expire. Until they expire you can buy and sell or rent (license) these rights, and you can bring a civil case to enforce them.
Neither are like, say, a monopoly on a commodity like milk, which can be illegal or against regulations. Search for "patent" and "monopoly" and you will find innumerable actual lawyers explaining the monopoly nature of patents better than I can.
Could you find a good example, as I don't know what I'm looking for. On "copyright" and "monopoly", presumably, not "patent". Patents could legitimately create a monopoly on a good, if there's no other way to make that good.
Copyright is a monopoly on material expressions of ideas, based on the firm belief that there is a spirit world and spiritual labour and the owning of spirit stuff. That's a lot of pretending.
So what if "The Right to Read" communicates such a message? If the Internet Archive gets a notice to shut down, I doubt anyone involved will suddenly start reading Stallman, then walk away as if they no longer had a company to shutter. The only people who matter in relation to the future of the Internet Archive are the ones who will be enforcing the law and I doubt most of them have read or will ever care to read "The Right to Read".
