I see this reasoning all the time, when in copyright debates or libertarian vs statism
debates: utilitarian arguments, basically saying this:
P1. Law X gives Y benefit Z.
P2. If we have no X, Y will have no Z.
P3. I want Y to have Z.
C. Therefore, we should keep X.
The problem is in premise 3.
Sure, you want Y to have Z. So what? I want to live forever. What next?
As soon as you say that copyright should be there, because it will give someone a benefit,
you have to explain why not pass some other law that will give other people benefits.
And, from my experience, all those explanations are arbitrary, because copyright is an
arbitrary regulation, which was initially a censorship mechanism.
But I would also question premise 2. How do you know that without benefit Z, Y will not
go out and find benefit Z+Z?
L.V.