Wow. You (attempt to) defend property rights as being a "social construct" (which is by definition imaginary) yet accuse me of being "divorced from reality." That's some amazing cognitive dissonance you've got going on there.
Have you even bothered to read The Federalist Papers
Do you mean this one tiny bit where they refer to copyright? The ONLY place it's mentioned in the Federalist Papers:
The utility of this power will scarcely be questioned. The copyright of authors has been solemnly adjudged, in Great Britain, to be a right of common law. The right to useful inventions seems with equal reason to belong to the inventors. The public good fully coincides in both cases with the claims of individuals. The States cannot separately make effectual provisions for either of the cases, and most of them have anticipated the decision of this point, by laws passed at the instance of Congress.
Funny, they are talking about rights, NOT property. They're talking about the public good.
No idea what you're talking about.
court decisions that lay waste to the absurd argument advanced by amateurs that copyright law subordinates the rights of authors to the public at large
Maybe something like this 1975 Supreme Court decision:
The immediate effect of our copyright law is to secure a fair return for an author’s creative labor. But the ultimate aim is, by this incentive, to stimulate artistic creativity for the general public good. Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S. 151, 156 (1975)
Looky there. The discussion is about the public good being the ultimate aim.
I don't know what other possible lower court decisions you think you're talking about, but I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court is laying waste to their absurd arguments.
It looks like it's you who needs to read (and comprehend) the Federalist papers and court decisions.
Masnick and pirates try to GRAB what clearly isn't their.
Clearly false. Where do you see anyone try to "grab" any of the photos in question? No encouragement to do so, no links to where they can be downloaded. NOTHING.
That's because the subject is not discussable in any other terms, which is the self-evident basis and cause of copyright.
Clearly you have zero clues. Try reading the Constitution sometime, which SPELLS OUT "the self-evident basis and cause of copyright." Article I, Section 8, Clause 8:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
Take note of the parts I've bolded. There's your "basis and cause" (promoting progress) and that it is an "exclusive right", not property which (for one thing) is permanent and not under a "limited time."
Also, I note that ottermaton doesn't object to the phrase "their property".
That's because it's so absurd I didn't think I needed to. I think what I've written above pretty much crushes the whole fictitious property idea.
Try again sometime when you can do so without lies and after you get some idea what copyright is actually about.
LOL @ Mike whining about what other people do with their property ...
What you call whining others see as constructive criticism.
... property they spent much time, effort, and money to acquire.
Apparently Mr. Musk, the one who actually spent his time, effort, and money also viewed it as constructive because he changed his mind. It is certainly better advice than what he would get from a failed Internet troll (looking at you antidirt).
Keep digging that hole, Mikey.
I guess Mr. Musk went and filled that hole back up. Question is, who do you think is gonna come along and rescue you from the hole you dig yourself every time you comment?
1) I don't have any sources to back up the BS I just spewed.
2) Normally I try to cite court cases to make my point, but I don't like this troublesome Jacobsen v. Katzer (especially because it's (one of) the only one(s) dealing with Open Source licensing and it disagrees with me), so everyone has to ignore it.