Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You're simultaneously wed to copyright because it's here, and arguing against a "right" to repair because it is not. So you're just repeating rationalizations for the current status quo. Oh, so you're a mind reader who can figure out my motivations? By the way, those are arguments, not rationalizations. They are pretty good, too. > For the third time now - copyright and patents presume to create a type of creative…
It doesn't take an ability to read minds to characterize a comment. In a universe with no copyright, arguments about its benefits would fall flat. In a universe with a right to repair, all the consumer benefits would be "manifestly true" in the way you're treating the arguments for copyright. You're demanding a level of proof that can only be met by having the condition already existing, and thus just defending the s…
They must not have, because we once lived in a universe without it, and now we don't. How do you suppose that happened?
Similarly, when the US patent system was created, arguments very similar to mine were presented in its defense, even though patents did not already exist. They worked. The arguments in favor of the status quo predate the status quo, and were convincing in a world without the status quo. That's because they are good arguments.
> Coming up with new concepts is obviously intuitive work - I've laid out what I see as a simple deeper abstraction behind copyright, which you've done nothing but ignore along with every other argument.
Intuition is not a valid or convincing argument. It does not deserve to be considered.