Without copyright, what incentive would government have to create new copyrightable works?
Government works created by government employees are true works of art. Masterpieces of creative genius and originality. You would never find anything boring in a report or other work copyrighted by the government.
Should the incentive to create such works be rewarded?
And wouldn't each use of the work be a Lost Sale, which would undermine one of the major things governments are supposed to do? (Selling things to the citizens.)
Advertisers totally ruined the golden age of television, and turned it into a vast wasteland by the mid 1970's.
Then came cable, supposedly without ads. But then advertising ruined that too.
Then came movie rentals on VHS. And then advertising.
And DVD, and ads.
And web pages. And ads. And as with all the prior examples, the ads started out mild. Then went totally out of control.
Then came internet streaming. And in some cases, ads -- even with paid service! Those services with the ads will inevitably be ruined by the ads. It is a disease that totally infects the medium in which it is placed.
Our roadsides are polluted with ads. And our cities.
I would suggest that in ages past, when news came in dead-tree* format, people of reprehensible moral nature brazenly infringed copyright by letting multiple persons read the same newspaper. This should still be a crime, even in the case where different persons wanted to read different sections. And it is much worse when two or more people laugh at a single copy of the comic section. Or the travesty of two different people identifying a movie that they want to see -- by looking at the movie section of the same newspaper!.
So your experiment seems like it should be a quadruple crime. You had two copies of the paper, and specifically avoided the ads for both copies. Then you gave those two copies to another person who also did not see the ads.
This causes four times the damage to the poor newspaper editors, journalists, photographers and printers. Think how much better off they would have been if you had actually read the advertisements in those newspapers. And then maybe just to be kind, read the ads a second time.
Nobody even dreamed that APIs were copyrightable until this bizarre case.
Nobody even dreamed that re-implementing an API could potentially result in legal trouble.
How many times has the Standard C Library API been implemented?
Let me point out something else. Who owns the copyright on the Standard C Library API? Oh, yeah, he's dead. Did he assign the rights to that API to anyone? No. Because nobody ever dreamed of the insane world we would live in today. So maybe his estate must own the rights. Oh, I smell money!
Oracle: Waaaaaaah! Google used a freely available open source Java implementation to build Android and made huge money! We want it! And Google didn't even use OUR java, they used an independently developed Java from the Apache Foundation! Waaaaaah!
Judge Alsup: No. Your copyright is not infringed.
Oracle: Bu, bu, but... Google used our APIs!
Judge Alsup: APIs are not copyrightable. I even learned some Java programming in order to better understand this case.
Oracle: Appeals court -- Waaaaaaaah! -- Google used our API, and they are making a Gazillion dollars, and we are only making a Jillion dollars! Waaaaaaaah!
Appeals Court: Oh, poor thing! Of course APIs are copyrightable! If it looks like some computery stuff that I don't understand, then it must be of immense value.
Oracle: Judge Alsup, we want a jury trial!
Judge Alsup: Ok, you got a jury trial.
Oracle: Waaaaaah! A jury did not agree with us. They unfairly sided with reality, common sense, and with what every single person says who knows anything about computers. Waaaaaaaah! Ignore the jury! We want money NOW!
Judge Alsup: No.
Perhaps next . . .
Oracle: Mr. Trump, we didn't get the money we wanted! Waaaaaaaah!
I sincerely regret that those who were harmed by our actions had to discover that the Secret Service was to blame.
I ask for your patience. Something Is Being Done™. I promise that in the future the Secret Service will not get caught doing anything like this ever again.
We at the Secret Service are deeply sorry that bad judgment and poor choice of actions resulted in personal embarrassment for past and present SS employees, and other outside parties and contractors who assisted in committing this crime.
We at the SS take full responsibility for our negligence and lack of diligent care to ensure that we would not get caught. You have my personal assurance that the Secrete Service will exercise much greater and more diligent care in the future.
To Rep. Jason Chaffetz and any others who were hurt by the Secret Service inappropriate, thoughtless and illegal actions I would like to humbly offer my sincerest indifference.