I can't say what we should or shouldn't do. But I think we would be better off if we did that. Notice I said that in order to make this viable we would want to make sure to provide for everyone so that no one's livelihood is threatened. I look at it this way: digital information has value. digital information can be copied for free. therefore we can copy value for free. if we leverage this principle we can generate a whole lot of value for essentially zero cost. this distribution of value would lead to more value creation, as for example children that grow up with access to way more books are probably more likely to produce more valuable art, science, and engineering output of their own.

I think we would be better off if we do this with movies, music, games, and engineering designs like designs for medical equipment, cars, etc. most of the standard economic arguments for intellectual property restrictions are wrong and short sighted, and I have heard them all. I think this concept is well worth exploring both philosophically and in practice

What are the benefits vs. deadweight losses of a copyright-maximalist regime?

Who benefits? Who loses? And to what extent?

And what would the net total cost of rectifying any shift of advantage to a copyright-minmalist regime be?

For that last, look to the net total annual revenues of commercial media.

And keep in mind that we're carrying out this discussion on a technological ecosystem founded in very large part on FSF Free Software / Open Source software.

> And keep in mind that we're carrying out this discussion on a technological ecosystem founded in very large part on FSF Free Software / Open Source software.

That's about as relevant as saying we should keep in mind we are carrying out this conversation on hardware mostly made in China (and most free software is also written on hardware made in China) so perhaps that is where we should be looking for answers.

No, it's not.

Your comment above suggested that stripping direct profit motive and incentives from copyright would produce a net harm. The Free Software model is based on the premise that stripping most exclusive rights under copyright, and specifically the ability to create new copies of, and new derivatives of works, is actually a net benefit to society, and often to the original author of a work who benefits by the collaborative and collective development and advancement of it.

One of the more fascinating characteristics of not only the Web but modern computing is that it's been the abandonment of proprietary interest in works (code, standards, protocols, operating systems) which have delivered the greatest value. AT&T did not voluntarily relinquish UNIX to the world, it was forced to do so under a 1950s US antitrust decree which granted the firm its monopoly in telecommunications but forbade it from engaging in the computer business.

https://www.softpanorama.org/History/Unix/unix_chonology.sht...

Arpanet, IETF, the GNU Project, TBL's CERN document-distribution project, Linux, multiple programming languages, and other elements are all based on the notion of non-proprietary ownership rights to the extent that free use and (generally) modification are permitted, often with little further restriction (MIT/BSD licenses), or with the requirement that further distribution also requires source availability in preferred form for making modifications (GNU GPL, AGPL, etc.).

That is: my comment was salient to the (implied) central fallacy of your previous statement. A foundation which your subsequent replies suggest is in fact your point.

Is there a good reason why not?

The broader class of cultural products includes different types of expression as subclasses: the discriminator is in the broader class - cultural products.