> You have the right to protect it with means that are not government force. Force is only justified in response to force, and you don’t get to ransom anyone that “steals” your thoughts and pixels.

This just sounds like your opinion, why do you think this? I really like that people can profitably write books and make movies and I think some force to allow that to happen seems reasonable.

I reject your whole premise here, as many thefts can occur without force, and many legal remedies are imposed without force. You're just ducking the question; it seems you're saying that 'no, you don't have any rights that you can enforce in court.' You'd probably object to extralegal enforcement on the basis that it violates the NAP or some other glibertarian trope.

Copyright is literally the mechanism that allows creators to obtain a legal remedy for such actions. I have a lot of problems with the state of copyright, but am OK with the basic concept.

GP is arguing against any sort of IP rights, so these questions are reasonable. Lying isn't illegal, if there are no IP rights in a created work then anyone can legally claim authorship.

The concept of intellectual property came about at the same time that slavery was fading away. Essentially at the time when people progressed into something better than basic primates that thought enslaving one another is a good idea. So technically speaking advocates for the abolition of copyright are projecting a reversal of progress. I want actual ai that actually learns and that doesnt rely on brute forcing simulated intelligence using a clever mix of people’s ideas. By tolerating this fakery you are really just handing over the bastardisation of the holy grail of tech - ai - to a handful of grifters who’s success relies on taking what’s mine for free and giving it to others for a fee. At scale and with government protection.