Originally Posted by VGeorgie

You understand little of what you write. I deal with copyright every day.

No government can confer the rights of ownership to a creative work. It is a natural, inalienable right. They can only confer a protection for copyright, and provide for civil and criminal penalties for infringers. You fail, or do not wish, to understand this simple premise.

When a court or any other legal body uses the term "monopoly" they do so in a framework that assumes those reading the decisions understand the use of terms. You don't, so you use a broad general-purpose dictionary definition; that is, as a coercive or stifling limitation. It's clear to any reasonable person reading a judgment of the court that for copyright their intention is to describe an exclusivity benefiting the public in a way that encourages ongoing creative output.

Your misunderstanding of copyright is only second to a complete failure to grasp the fair use doctrine. You believe copyright establishes what is and what isn't fair use. It doesn't. As a legal doctrine it comes from case law and precedent. Until clear cut fair use is established for a VERY SPECIFIC CASE, you cannot claim it, and anything else is infringement. You want to be judge and jury, conjuring extraneous legal conclusions to whatever poorly educated argument you wish to make.

Finally, in the interests of your education, or lack thereof, DMCA is a copyright law, enacted in response to WIPO treaty, and *amends* Title 17. It's all the same law, so don't be stupid. DMCA further criminalizes the circumvention of anti-copy processes.