It's one of those "synchronicity" weeks. Robin Bloor wrote a quick bit about a fundamental error with the "cost of copying is zero" argument, and he's right. The cost of copying is not free, but very cheap. Computers, electricity, and the internet cost money - in my case, over $100 a month. So, copying some songs is not "free" - I paid others so i could copy. (FTR, I just signed up to Napster, and used to sub to Emusic, both decent song sellers.)

While I tend to side on the "let's all copy and pirate" side, Bloor's essays are always great, and his arguments hold a lot more water than the techno-libertarian positions.

A post on LA Indymedia raised the issue of newspapers and the internet.

Wikipedia has an article about the anti-copyright movement.

The main problem I have with anti-copyright is that I like the basic idea of copyright: that the author of a work has the right to regulate how it is used.

The anti-copyright side tends to make arguments that the community benefits from weak copyrights. This is true - reusing art is fundamental to culture, and also promotes innovation and adaptation. However, I think that weakening copyright would tend to benefit business more than communities or authors.