> Because remember when you say an author “deserves” to be paid you are saying the state should use its monopoly on violence to make that happen
Yes, that's how property rights - and in fact all rights afforded through civilized society - are enforced. If you have a problem with that take it up with literally the entirety of recorded human history.
That is an hilariously authoritarian view and wrong to boot.
You are confusing rights that are created by the threat of violence, such as copyright, and rights that are protected by the threat of violence, such as the right to not be killed for no reason.
Needless to say there is no inherent right for an author to profit from copyright. It is a wholly constructed right. They do not "deserve" it. Perhaps a society chooses to organize itself that way and perhaps it doesn't. On the other hand, innocent people really do deserve to not get murdered.
Am I understanding correctly that your position is that the enforcement of property rights is authoritarian? Or is your position that copyright is not a form of property rights, and thus authoritarian?
For the vast majority of recorded human history there was no copyright. We have records of Roman senators semi-complaining about how rude an acquaintance who wouldn't let them copy their book (not a book they had written, a book they had come into possession of a copy of) was.
Armed men have never enforced that everyone gets what they deserve. Not even close. They enforce those laws that we have decided they should. It's a huge leap from saying that someone deserves something to saying that society's armed men should take that something from other people and give it to them.
Yes, that's how property rights - and in fact all rights afforded through civilized society - are enforced. If you have a problem with that take it up with literally the entirety of recorded human history.