Copyright is as much a "right" as mineral rights are a "right." It is just a system for regulating a particular industry. Don't make the mistake of thinking that all "rights" are "natural rights."

No rights are "natural rights".

> It's hard to see why how and who on earth is entitled to prohibit to anyone in having right to make a copy

The how and who are easy: the Constitution[0], and the American government.

The why is trickier, but the idea at least is that restricting copies means more people buy the "real" thing, which means more money goes to the owner, and creators are therefore more incentivized to make and copyright things in America.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause

The "why" is that distribution is always cheaper than production of creative works. In other words, people who make new works are stuck with all the costs, while people who sell copies get all the profit. This also tends to be an asymmetric relationship: creators tend to be individuals while publishers tend to be large corporate enterprises with the ability and know-how to bury you. Copyright exists to force publishers to negotiate with creators that would otherwise have no leverage[0].

The idea that copies are supposed to be scarce is an invention of Disney marketing, and I'd argue contrary to the spirit of the law. The stated purpose of copyright is to increase the amount of works on the market (by giving creators some negotiating leverage with publishers), not to make individual copies more valuable. That's just a side effect, one that is supposed to be bounded by limited term lengths[1].

[0] For those wondering, this is also what drove copyright harmonization over the last century. Any difference in law between countries creates an avenue for publishers to find a way to cheat creators. Before the era of international copyright it was quite common for publishers to race creators to foreign markets, since translation was not yet an exclusive right of the creator and most countries did not recognize each other's copyright interests.

[1] Please stop laughing. I know life+70 is practically forever.

>Copyright exists to force publishers to negotiate with creators that would otherwise have no leverage[0].

In my experience when I was thinking to publish something on phtostock I was presented with automatic contract stripping me from all of my "leverage" and if I disagree? it's their way or highway. Of course I could not agree to that. So experience was rather short as you might guess and no live person was even involved on their behalf.

So in my experience it seems that you need some other "leverage" to force publishers to negotiate with creators.

>people who make new works are stuck with all the costs, while people who sell copies

I wasn't talking about 'selling copies'. I was talking about right of making copies. Selling copies is something else I think.

"[the United States Congress shall have power] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

From the same source: [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause

I can see here mention of "exclusive Right".

Can't see there man in the middle having exclusive Right though who also allowed to strip all the rights from the Authors and Inventors. Can't see there any "copyright". Can't see there entitlement "to prohibit to anyone in having right to make a copy". Selling copy is something else. But who can prohibit making copy?

If you read this text you have copied it to your brain from the 'screen copy' of 'memory copy' of 'web response copy' of data stored on server which is 'copy of what I wrote' . There are more stages that I've mentioned of course and each of them produces copy.

>the idea at least is that restricting copies means more people buy the "real" thing

I do not see how current system is in the spirit of [0] and I do not see how current system is even in the spirit of what you've described. It's broken and works for other purposes. Doesn't "promote Progress of Science and useful Arts" it seems.

This is the last time I'll reply, your comments are admittedly going off the rails now.

> Can't see there any "copyright". Can't see there entitlement "to prohibit to anyone in having right to make a copy". Selling copy is something else. But who can prohibit making copy?

17 U.S.C.§106 - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/106

You also take umbrage with the fact that "copy" is fairly ambiguous. You can find the legal definition of "copy" in 17 U.S.C§101: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/101. It's fairly cut and dry.

>This is the last time I'll reply, your comments are admittedly going off the rails now.

It is your choice of course but please try to understand that I was not even trying to be on any rails there as I am questioning the logic and ideas behind the current laws because I observe inconsistency of current laws with initial idea of promoting progress in Science and Arts by giving exclusive Right to Authors and Inventors. Not some man-in-the-middle by the way. Authors and Inventors. Where ever I go I do not see copyright belonging to Authors, all I see is someone else who took all rights from those Authors and Inventors. Even if we accept such exclusive Right I do not see why such exclusive Right should be transferable as it is obviously would be abused and we observe that in reality.

>It's fairly cut and dry.

In the context I've described above while I am thankful to you without any irony for providing useful links to the current laws and definitions I am still more interested about ideas behind them rather then current implementations.

>You also take umbrage with the fact that "copy" is fairly ambiguous.

I would not use word 'umbrage' but when one questioning ideas behind certain definitions every term becomes open for interpretations and the current legal definition is just one of them.

It is called "Intellectual Property Rights", and has been defined for centuries as exactly sets of prohibitions against anyone having a right to make a copy (even if not presented as original).

The entire point is to encourage creative endeavors, whether by patents for inventions or by copyright for the arts. The ability to restrict trivial copying has been essential for the advancement of arts & sciences.

So, no, making a copy and giving it to your friend is technically against the law, but in a practical sense, unless you are doing it at scale, it is legal in a practical sense.

That said, the systems of both copyrights and patents are massively forking broken. And abused.

So, the need for overhaul is massive, but to act like it is some alien concept with no possible worth is not helpful to the discussion, merely disingenuous or ignorant.

The default in the USA is that nobody has the right to make a copy of something created by someone else. The right to make copies is limited to the creator of the work. We say "the creator owns the copyright".

Since the legal system in the USA (and elsewhere) has "evolved" to consider copyright to be property in most of the same senses as anything else you can own, it follows that copyright can be transferred to others.

You are welcome to disagree with either premise ("no copying of someone else's creation", "right to copy is property") but that's the situation at present, and it's not obviously wrong unless you adopt some philosophical positions that the USA (and most of western Europe) does not (in aggregate) hold.

"right" is the right word, the point here is that it is *exclusive.

Speech rights and copy rights are both rights. Great that speech rights are universal in most democratic countries. Awful that copy rights are exclusive.