Are you listening to yourself? Why are you artificially restricting to only ideas and viewpoints? Also plenty of potential copyright infringement absolutely is expressing ideas or viewpoints.
I don't really see how you justify to yourself that this would not be censorship. I. Read your posts about differing opinions on scope, and my conclusion is that your narrowed scope definition is bullshit to help you sleep at night.
Any and all suppression or removal of any and all forms of speec, by anyone, is censorship. The first amendment is supposed to mean the government cannot do this, in most cases. There are socially acceptable forms of censorship that we deem worth the trade off (direct threats, fire in theater, etc). That is still censorship, its just a form we accept.
Trying to argue otherwise is just clouding the discussion, which should be: do we consider censorship for enforcing copyright acceptable?
There's a difference between a letter *sending* campaign (where you should be able to edit) and a letter *signing*. In the latter case, a single letter has been written, and you are choosing to add your name to it. , as written, before a single package is sent with all the signees.
Sounds to me like those writers need to work out a better flat fee for their services up front. If it didn't depend on per play so much, there would be a problem. Make the publisher pay what your finite creation work is worth, without amortizing it.
I commend countries willing to ignore IP (primarily drug patents) in the interest of the health of their citizens. There is no greater service they could do than ensure those who need meds can get them at an affordable price.
If Big Pharma won't sell to Brazil or Mexico or even Canada at a price that work, we/they can just make ourselves. Go blow it out your ass. Corporate profits should never trump public health.