That is true. Other people's rights are often an inconvenience.

Copyright isn't really a right in the sense of the public freedoms/choice.

It's there to limit publishing and distribution to only those with the legal document saying they can. It's more of a anti-right. In fact historically it was created for the purpose of censorship.

People have a right to the fruits of their labors. I don't care a tinker's mother about the history of copyright — the principle is simple, and copyright is a flawed protection of that right.

Though it may be used by industry on some occasion to protect someone's ability to profit. Copyright and the right to the fruits of your labor are not the same thing.

In cases like this disregarding one isn't equivalent to infringing on the other.

I expressed the contrast between copyright and the right it attempts to protect above. Notice that I didn't say anything about profiting from the fruit of their labors, but the right to them, no matter whether they choose to profit or let it rot. It's just as much an infringement to preserve it without their permission as it is to sell it.

Yep that's the definition of copyright. Seems like more of a anti-right as it's about limiting others rights.

I see the problem here: you don't know what a right is.