1. Should copyright exist?
1. No because I do not find any of the arguments I have read regarding the use of violence against someone merely for speech to be compelling and therefore it would violate the
Non-Aggression Axiom but I remain minded to superior arguments. Additionally, copyright was invented as a tool for the State to suppress the free flow of ideas, is still being used as a tool to suppress ideas like with the raid on Kim Dotcom and is all done under color of law that is built on a very weak intellectual foundation for moral justification.
Consequently, I am against the use of violence to impede or prevent the spread of the
Bitcoin protocol because it is speech.
huh? You went to law school and you don't understand the purpose of copyrights and intellectual property?
"copyright was invented as a tool for the State to suppress the free flow of ideas"
Maybe the law has been taken too far but it was put into place at the request of artists to protect their work. The rest of your lunatic rant in unintelligible to normal people.
copyright is for people who want to suck in money.
i do not support copyright, that's why I pirate non-open-source products and I donate to open-source projects.