Let me preface by noting that I, too, am a software developer, and ran/was an ISV catering primarily to small business from 2001 to 2008. Nevertheless, I am anti-copyright.
There are several arguments against copyright, but the one I like most is this: property is necessary because two people cannot both (exclusively) use the same property at the same time. The idea of property solves this, and everyone can agree that that is yours while this is mine. The nature of things is that they can't be available for the exclusive use of two or more people. Ideas (copyright and patents, at least; trademarks are less clear) can be used by more than one person without any impact on others using it: everyone can exclusively use an idea at the same time. The reason for this is that "an idea" isn't a thing at all, but a category of things -- a description of a group, each instance of which is owned by virtue of someone owning the physical thing that instantiates it.
In summary: I don't believe in ownership of categories of things, only things themselves.
If you look at the origins of copyright, even its supporters didn't believe it was real property; it was purely a utilitarian attempt to encourage production of ideas by extending an analogy of property to idea production, for a limited time. There are still reasonable arguments to be made about whether it's an net economic win or lose for a legal system to include copyright and patent, and other people can argue that point better than I.
I would go further than this. Censorship is when the state forbids speech. Copyright is a state entitlement of monopoly on specific speech wherein the state forbids it to all but that monopoly holder. Therefore, copyright is censorship.
As for economics, I'd guess it's a loss. Copyright and patent are state subsidies for speech and technology. But while you generally do get more of something you subsidize, it's always at a greater cost elsewhere in one's economy.
I thought about this and I think I see where your failing to draw a line. Censorship is about stifiling someones rights - whereas copyright is a "casual enforcement" of someones right to keep control of their own works. It isnt really censorship because what right does anyone have to profit from a piece of work except the original creator?
I dont really follow that argument. Copyright doesnt cover ideas - purely creations (like music, software, artwork, films). Ideas do require patents etc.
If you have an idea you have to take steps to protect it. If you create a working product based on the idea that specific design is protected by a modicum of copyright.
I do see where you are coming from with the ideas thing (the free-software side of me wants me to agree fully that ideas/processes should never be protected).
(this is in the UK of course: in the US things might be different)
I think you either didn't notice the part of my explanation where I addressed categories, or wouldn't agree that categories are ideas. :)
If I create a product -- say, a book I write in longhand with pen on paper -- the product is covered by existing law without copyright. That physical book is mine to do with as I please, assuming I owned the raw materials in the first place. At this point, copyright isn't needed: I could contract with those I allow to read or copy this book. Where copyright comes in is in asserting a right to prevent copying over other physical books which are sufficiently similar to the one I just wrote. I'd be asserting a right to control an entire category of physical objects, rather than specific objects. I think the burden of proof is on those who want to extend property rights to categories of things, as an analogy with property rights in things. I used to use an example wherein I pointed to the absurdity of a car manufacturer asserting a right to all photos of their cars, but some car manufacturer actually did that without widespread derision recently.
About ideas/processes: if processes can't be protected, then what about a process which, followed strictly, produces a copyrighted work? Aren't copyright and patent isomorphic in this way?
used to use an example wherein I pointed to the absurdity of a car manufacturer asserting a right to all photos of their cars, but some car manufacturer actually did that without widespread derision recently.
Yeh I am fairly certain in the UK that wuold not stand up. Certainly it doesnt fall under copyright.
What happens when you write a book and ask people for money to read it (unless we are arguing that everything should be free :)) and then someone else copies your book and sells it slightly cheaper than you. Should we not have protective laws to stop that occuring?
I think copyright is being confused here. With the similarity aspect we are talking intellectual property not copyright. Copyrightr (In the UK) applies simply to direct copies or derivative works (in your example if someone copied my book but added a new ending and a few new chapters).
If someone rewrites your entire plot without using any of your text they are fine (and the 2 works will stand and fall on their relative merits). But if you tried to write a book about Harry Potter the Wizard you would probably run into trobule - because the name has (I believe) been trade marked in that context (I could be wrong - but it is a dramatic example).
There are several arguments against copyright, but the one I like most is this: property is necessary because two people cannot both (exclusively) use the same property at the same time. The idea of property solves this, and everyone can agree that that is yours while this is mine. The nature of things is that they can't be available for the exclusive use of two or more people. Ideas (copyright and patents, at least; trademarks are less clear) can be used by more than one person without any impact on others using it: everyone can exclusively use an idea at the same time. The reason for this is that "an idea" isn't a thing at all, but a category of things -- a description of a group, each instance of which is owned by virtue of someone owning the physical thing that instantiates it.
In summary: I don't believe in ownership of categories of things, only things themselves.
If you look at the origins of copyright, even its supporters didn't believe it was real property; it was purely a utilitarian attempt to encourage production of ideas by extending an analogy of property to idea production, for a limited time. There are still reasonable arguments to be made about whether it's an net economic win or lose for a legal system to include copyright and patent, and other people can argue that point better than I.