You speak of "the author". But the current system does not benefit "the author". 1% of authors profit off copyright. 99% lose money on copyright (they pay more for copyrighted media than they earn from it).

Your question should be "How does that benefit monopolist authors"?

I agree, my idea would not benefit monopolist authors. They would lose the bulk of their revenue stream.

But it would benefit the average author whose cost of living would fall and information would start serving them more than serving business.

I am not downplaying the talent and hard work of successful monopolist authors. But I do not think the works they create are worth everyone giving up their rights to reshare and remix information. I believe the world would look very different post-IP. You'd probably have a new profession--small independent librarians (similar to data hoarders today)--who would help their local communities maximize the value they got from humanity's best information.

Maybe I'm wrong! Maybe the information ecosystem is better controlled and the genetic differences of monopolist authors are so stark that without the subsidies to this gifted class we'd all be worse off. But that's an argument based on outcomes and not principles.

> without their permission

The oxygen I'm breathing right now mostly was created by trees on land owned by others. But I don't ask for their permission to breath. Some things are just not natural.

I am not saying plagiarize. It is always the right thing to do to link back and/or credit the source. But needing to ask permission to republish something seems to go against natural laws.