Information cannot be sold or bought. It has to be taught and learned. One can buy a book, but it would do no good until he reads and digests the contents, and take some action based upon his acquired knowledge.
Distribution of printed words can do damage. Natural resources, most notably pulp made from trees, are needed to print a book. Forests are cut down to provide paper for newspapers, magazines and advertisement leaflets, much which are barely read.
Even electronic media consumes precious resources. Electronic bulletin boards around the world are clogged with trivial messages, burdening those in search of relevant information with the overhead of filtering out noise. Freedom of speech means that nobody should interfere with those who need to express information necessary for the public welfare. None has the right to publicly announce feelings impulsively. Since governments should be never granted the power to determine good information from bad, freedom of speech relies solely upon the autonomy of those who speak.
Mere possession of information can be harmful. Private libraries of unread books give the owner the illusion of knowledge. The information society of this age encourages those who create new ideas to obtain patents and copyrights and allows them to trade such information in the market. But when proprietary information fall into wrong hands, for example, those who do not know how to employ the new technology, the inventor's wisdom is lost to society.
Information would mean nothing unless it reaches those in need of it.
Therefore, the flow of information should never be regulated. I support
the spirit of copyleft in this sense. It is odd that people have to state
copyleft explicitly, since information has the nature of traveling toward
the hands of those who seek it. I see no need of government protection
here.
Copyright is maintained through political authority. I have trouble
understanding why such protection is available free of cost. The protection
offered by copyright has allowed corrupt literature, buggy software and
clamorous music to flourish and nourish those who market them. Precious
natural resources are wasted for media necessary to transmit and preserve
such vain information. It takes little time for such trash to reach the
landfills.
Copywrong confirms to freedom of speech in its true spirit. People should have the freedom to distribute information, employing whatever means that should be available and appropriate. But there also should be self-restraint. I leave it to the readers to understand my writing and decide what actions should be taken. I do not posses the ability to write down clear rules. But one major principle is obvious: Freedom is not free.
One can observe an irony here. 'Copyright' means "It is wrong to copy this." 'Copywrong" means "You are allowed to copy this, provided that it is done in the right manner." Minitruth is certainly doing a splendid job for Big Brother.