So my argument is invalid because of bringing up the true history of copyrights even though that was nothing more than a remark to how long the detriment of copyright has been happening? If coming back to your plane means idiotically mumbling copying is stealing I take a pass. And again :
Copyrights are not about protecting the author, they are about monopolizing on a work and by and large, this is done by producers who have acquired a serendipitously clever name. The only protections copyright offer is mafia style RICO worthy Monopoly protections which equate copying to stealing.

People cannot see the bigger picture of the logical fail of hoarding over ideas and the detriment that has been beaten to death ever since the first copyright laws to censor authors came about.

Furthermore if you follow the conversation sunlit7 was having below you'd realize that the post needs a major rework to pontificate that you cannot purse for damages unless you register, poking a giant gaping hole in the whole post and making the protection racket evident, the excuses for not mentioning that without registering you won't get protection is hilarious considering that it details so much, even that people putting out work for free means they do so without compensation, and it's nice to credit them, but how many times was it implicit that the work is protected? your work isn't protected by copyrights on creation, but you can wrestle out of that whichever way you want because the point cannot be evaded: copyrights are effective in protecting only if you register.

The final point to drive the meaningless of it is that your pedantic comment keeps up the myth that artists are protected, or that laws will recompense them for damages, they do, it's producers and publishers that pimp out artists more than anything who make the money off people Stealing the intangible.