zlacker

Usually when I see this opinion (yours), it leans on an uncharitable coloring of everybody who sees problems with copyright as "anti-copyright", when really those people largely are happy with the concept of protecting an individual's work. I.e. it is the age-old "those people" argument, where "those people" are a made-up conglomerate of opinions that are real, but come from slightly different contexts and from different people, throwing away those variables to create the illusion of a hypocrite.

>>happyt+(OP)
I think this is a good explanation, and even if this isn't what the OP says, I see arguments like this frequently.

In the case of copyright, think of it as anti-current-implementation of copyright rather than anti-copyright. For example, you could oppose the current copyright term, but that doesn't mean you are anti-copyright. Quite the opposite, in fact.

>>happyt+(OP)
> it leans on an uncharitable coloring of everybody who sees problems with copyright as "anti-copyright"

That's the charitable coloring. Owning concepts or ideas, and trying to police others' use of ideas you """own""" is absurd.

>>happyt+(OP)
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Goomba_fallacy

(Not so ironclad that you're wrong not to use it, but I'm a fan of this term, so promulgating)