Interesting. Thoughts aren't real?
I must disagree. Our thoughts determine our reality. They determine how we interpret what our senses gather from the outside world. They color everything we say and do. I believe our thoughts are very real.
The people who invented the wheel, the airplane, the automobile, the transistor -- they all had to think of their inventions first. They had to take existing knowledge and theories and their own thoughts, and synthesize something new from them.
How about writers? Novels and short stories don't just spontaneously flow from the writer's fingertips. The words and sentences and plots and stories must be preceded by thoughts of them.
I happen to agree that copyright and patent law the way it exists today is assanine. It's designed to protect the lazy asses of big corporate executives who want to continue capitalizing on what other people have thought up. Michael Eisner didn't invent Mickey Mouse, but he sure does lobby for laws that let him continue to make money off Mickey.
As a producer of "intellectual property" (I'm a photographer), this is an issue I wrestle with constantly. Technology makes it both simple and easy for anyone and everyone to take an image I thought up and made into a photograph, and use it on their advertising, or make copies of it to sell. Once digitized, that file can be reproduced to infinite generations with perfect fidelity -- even a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy has exactly the same bits as the original. Without copyright, anybody can see my photograph, download or scan it, and use it to generate profit for themselves, without comensating me for my time and effort in creating it. In such a situation, the only way I could use my creativity, my intellectual effort, to put bread on the table would be to sell the original photograph for so much money that nobody would want to buy it.
How about inventors? Without patent protection, any manufacturer who has already set up a production floor could see the designs for a revolutionary new widget, which the inventor has painstakingly researched and prototyped and proven workable, and start making and selling it without ever compensating the inventor for all his time, effort, hard work, and thought.
In both cases, the major effort went into the creation of the original. The copies are both cheap and easy to make.
I think the framers of the Constitution came up with a reasonable compromise: Creators are given incentive to create and share their work, with an exclusive monopoly on copying and selling it for a strictly limited period of time. That allows the creators to be fairly compensated while at the same time making their work available to the public at an affordable rate, spreading the cost of their creative effort over a period of time. After the time expires, the work falls fully into the public domain.
The Constitution provides for this exclusive right to sell for a period of 14 years, renewable for another 14 providing the creator is still alive. After that time, the work was to fall into the public domain, so that anyone may use or derive from it as they please. That intent has been severely perverted by various legislation, which has extended the monopoly protection to the lifetime of the artist plus 75 years, and provides for the transfer of that monopoly protection to heirs and assigns.
If I add up what each individual image could bring in to my pocket over the next 10 to 15 years, in the sales of limited edition original prints, sales of monographs (books of collected works), etc., each photograph I produce can generate upwards of $30K for me. How many people do you know who could, or would, shell out thirty thousand dollars for a photograph of their child? By spreading that $30K out over 10 to 15 years, I can offer that photograph to the family for $1,000- and a signed release that I can display and sell the images in museums, galleries, and books. Having copyright protection means that if I find out that somebody is using one of those photographs in their advertising or on some sicko porn site, I can sue to make them stop. Without copyright protection, anybody can use those images any way they want, and can use my name and reputation (another form of intellectual property) to promote their profit, and/or sully my name and reputation by associating it with things I don't want it associated with.
Please explain to me how I could use my talent to earn a living, establish and protect a good reputation, in a society that does not allow for the existence and protection of "intellectual property".