http://praxeology.net/anticopyright.htm
"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it.
Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it.
He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me."
- Jefferson
Copyright does not exist because it is thought to be natural — quite the opposite. Copyright exists because there is no natural property right to those things, but it is widely believed that granting authors some degree of ownership of their work serves the common good.
It is certainly true that it appears to be hard to get compensated for work that is not protected by copyright. Some might say that's all right, and people should just create things for the good of everyone else and they can mumblemumble to keep food on the table and a roof over their heads while they're creating — but that kind of "let them eat cake" attitude is unlikely to gain currency as long as people actually believe authors bring value into the world.
Incidentally, if we're actually talking about everything that's called "intellectual property" rather than just copyrights, your plan also means there will be nothing preventing me from, say, opening up a faux Apple store and selling knockoff Macs and iPhones that just run Gentoo with a crappy theme.
Re. mechanisms for paying authors and musicians (and other creatives) without Copyright or Patent law, take a look at that Molinari site. History is replete with examples.
Furthermore, even if your argument were correct, it still wouldn't justify the initiation of force inherent in Copyright and Patent law. That is, the desire of authors to earn a living from writing ought not to be sufficient cause for the State to coerce people into paying them for their writing.
Lewis Hyde's Common As Air is a good read on the framers' original intentions when it came to issues like this, and why our modern system is in violation of their original constitutional mandate. Personally enjoyed it more than his other well known work The Gift.
On the subject of the article, and as per Bradley Kuhn's analysis[1], it should be noted that the court did not consider the question of fair use in this case and a jury will be able to sit down and consider that can of worms going forward. Not the end of the world, considering.
I remember first hearing the story of Prometheus when I was in elementary school, and I thought it was very peculiar that he was being punished so cruelly[0] for "stealing", when really the gods were no worse off afterwards.
[0] Chained to a rock for all eternity[1], with his liver eaten daily by an eagle (his liver regenerated, as he was immortal)
[1] Well, "forever" until Hercules freed him
If they want to play copyright games, then we as developers can force them to play the game by our rules (else we don't use their APIs).
