[colonelspace]

I'm continuing because this is interesting, not try to prove some point that undermines your perspective.

> Copyright actually defies common law by requiring state power to enforce monopolies on certain information

All laws ultimately require state power. You're deferring to state power by using the MIT licence, which recognises and legitimises copyright law that you take issue with.

> Copyright is sold as "promoting the arts" but in net slows innovation and decreases artistic freedom.

This is a big claim that requires big evidence. Robust copyright law has existed for about half a century, during which time innovation and artistic freedom seem to have flourished. In fact copyright appears to have directly contributed to the creation of the corpus Meta AI is exploiting; it exists because of copyright, not in spite of it.

> [Copyright] primarily enables rent-seeking by publishers at the expense of the public

I think you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Copyright bestows the right of individuals to benefit from the value they create. Without talking about IP law more broadly in a capitalist system (which seems to be your gripe), I think this is a good thing.

I've benefitted greatly from the content of books, as have we all. If authors had to rely on live shows (for a book?), take commissions and sell subscriptions I think we'd all be worse off, because these provide little to no economic security for authors.