thanks for the explanation of your point. I was kindof thinking that you were getting frustrated with me and that you were saying my point was absurd like the other dude! I don't think it is necessrily Immoral to INSIST on ownership necessarily, but it could be. I think it is WEIRD!

I will restate this ONE MORE TIME. and any publisher that is interested should maybe contact me (even though i think it would definitley be immoral:

I have written sales scripts in the past, and several years back I became intrigued with using artificial intelligence to optimize the sales process. (it's is a long, if not totally uninteresting story) one of the byproducts of that process was a random word generator that self optimized based on response. also self developed by the AI (think evolution) were parameter filters that decreased the likelyhood of impossible-pharases, less likely phrases etc. .... I am totally serious when i say I COULD at this time, with the proper resources, ( I could do it now on my desktop, but it would be a slow process) program a computer to write all possible songs up to a given lenght, and then could copyright them all and put EVERY writer out of business. I could even make it where it will generate the MOST LIKELY sensible songs first to optimize the run time!

My question to you is WOULD THAT be unethical, immoral, unfair? WHY because of MY ingenuity? Now that I have said these things on a board where publishers and writers frequent, I'm sure people will actually consider the idea, and weigh it's utilty and consider it's possible application and usage. the CONCEPT of the ownership of ideas is flawed in my opinion, because althouth a computer spitting out randon, and then optimized combinations of words, CAN in fact do it faster, WHO cares if it copyrights a billion BAD songs. It WOULD have the ability to CREATE EVERY GOOD song as well. then it would just be about MATCHING the new songs that any creative person comes up with, with the prior art! I think THAT would be just WRONG in some way.

I SERIOUSLY don't see WHY this is an invalid argument against intellectual property. recipes are not covered because they are considered MERE ingredients. but I say WORDS ARE MERE ingredients. and if you don't think so I can't understand WHY. althouhg I would like to.