I am not sure what you are getting at, all property rights are made up agreements, as is what is defined as property, what can be privatized and what rights that affords you.
Take tangible land, your exclusive use of it has boundaries, for example airspace rights or mineral rights. It is all made up.
The difference is tangible v intangible, but in either case the rights are made up.
What is it with this new ontological wave on the Interwebs? For a mathematical axiom, do you need another axiom that tells us that the first one exists? And so forth?
How would you prove the existence of the universe? Do we not need a bigger universe that contains ours? And so forth? (Don't mention the big bang, which is a bunch of non-falsifiable formulas.)
Who has gotten jail or prison time for copyright violations in recent times?
I’m aware of recent cases in Canada where defendants chose to ignore a court ruling and attempt to republish very similar material as what the court had originally found them to be in copyright violation for. They were then found to be in contempt of the court which is a criminal offence and then ordered to complete jail time and pay substantial fines.
Copyright violations are not criminal offences in countries I’m aware of. Please tell me of any cases where a copyright violator faced jail time for the copyright violation and not for related criminal offences.
> Swedish prosecutors filed charges on 31 January 2008 against Fredrik Neij, Gottfrid Svartholm, and Peter Sunde, who ran the site; and Carl Lundström, a Swedish businessman who through his businesses sold services to the site. The prosecutor claimed the four worked together to administer, host, and develop the site and thereby facilitated other people's breach of copyright law.
>Ontologically, copyright doesn't exist. Copyright is an epistemology.
You keep using these words, ontology and epistemology. I don't think they mean what you think they mean.
>If copyright could exist, then a copyright for the copyright must be able to exist, and it'd be turtles all the way down
This doesn't make any sense.
First, not all things that exist are covered by copyright or have a copyright about them existing (air exists, but doesn't have a copyright. Neither do slugs, pebbles, Uranus, and other existing things).
Copyright is just sets of laws dictating ability to copy, distribute, and so on. It doesn't need a copyright for itself, and even if it did, the regular terms for reproducing any other legal code would suffice.
>Copyright, as intellectual property, is entirely made up as all other intellectual property is.
All human laws and conventions are made up. Doesn't mean anything - copyright is still enforceable with very real prison buildings, cells, and bars - and if resisting arrest for it, very tangible police battons, tasers, and bullets are not out of question either.
If copyright could exist, then a copyright for the copyright must be able to exist, and it'd be turtles all the way down.
This is not nitpicking. Copyright, as intellectual property, is entirely made up as all other intellectual property is.
Saying copyright exists is as laughable as saying intellectual property is as non rivalrous as the chair you sit in.