I&#x27;ll ignore that we are debating this(and both getting upvotes), and thus it&#x27;s debatable.<p>For most of human history if you, say, heard a poem someone else wrote you were absolutely free to copy it, reproduce it, even sell it! Even if you didn&#x27;t do the work of actually writing it. And this was the norm, and no one thought the author should have the right to stop you. So saying that it&#x27;s not debatable whether this is still the case from a moral standpoint (hence the &quot;should&quot; in the debated statement) seems to me shortsighted.<p>What&#x27;s more, even today there are countless ways in which content is distributed without permission from it&#x27;s makers that we don&#x27;t deem wrongs. Libraries were named in this thread, and we have all kinds of lendings, readings, quotes and all use that is allowed by fair use. Where the rights of the makers should end (and those of the consumer start) is very much debatable.