I don't expect to convert anyone here, but I will correct your facts:
> There are excellent reasons why intellectual property rights
> exist and have existed in one form or another in so many places
> and for so long;
The very first thing that resembled a copyright was the Statute of
Anne in 1710. Many countries today still have none. "Excellent
reasons" is of course just an unsupported value judgment.
> probably the most important is that, without them, artists
> and inventors lose an extremely important incentive to carry
> on their work.
This is indeed the common justification for them. But clearly the
entire Renaisance is a counterexample: art, invention, culture, and
creativity flourished as never before in human history--witout
benefit of copyrights or patents.
> Of course, if one were a luddite, for example, one might want to
> oppose intellectual property protections, because getting rid of
> them would almost certainly have a very chilling effect on the
> development of technology.
I personally am an Extropian, which is roughly the exact opposite of
a Luddite (I should point out that the majority of Extropians still
support your view of things--though I'm working on that:). I want
technology and creativity to grow and flourish--and profit--and I
sincerely believe that copyrights and patents get in the way of that
goal. I have not been brainwashed by a culture shaped by intrenched
status-quo interests who use these scare stories to justify present
law; I have examined the history and the facts for myself, and drawn
my own conclusions.
--------------------------------------