"TOO MUCH" does not imply a preference for zero in *all* cases
"...if someone creates something and others want to use it, they should be paid. Everyone agrees with this - except for one Register reader..."
Classic Strawman FAIL. 1) E.g. No disageement here that Ansel Adams deserves his copyright (an obvious counterexample exposing the strawman nature of your incorrect and overreaching 'summary' quoted above). 2) In the example under discussion, the payment might best be in bananas. The monkey literally created the work in question; the human is falsely claiming copyright and should be fined $10,000 for false claims.
The point: It is trivial to create examples where a copyright might be legally claimed, in circumstances where there is zero moral basis. Or vice versa! The most interesting part is the part at the middle, where the arbitrary line is drawn. Where do we draw the line in a continuum? In this case, who pressed the button? Are you surprised when perceived injustices arise from such arbitrary dichotomies? Are you surprised that the perceived injustices must come in either polarity? Read that last sentence again. Dawkins recently wrote a bit on "Essentialism", mandatory reading for those confused by the subtler aspects of this argument.
If photograpers want a copyright for what may include simply pressing the button, then they shouldn't be surprised if their copyright claim is rejected when they didn't even press the button. Injustice? No. Arbitrary? Yes, perfectly.
Cheers.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
