There's no need for violence and no need for taxation in such a system. The two parties willingly choose a court to fall back on if their contract needs arbitration.
>if the contract is violated and the violator taken to court and the court rules against them and they refuse to pay restitution?
If you're entering into a contract with someone and you're worried they won't pay restitution, mandate terms in the contract that require up-front collateral for a performance penalty. Problem solved.
Each person in the stage of production has the appropriate incentives to collect payment and protect their property. The reason why copyright law has been perverted is because there are distribution companies who'd rather not pony up performance capital and want to socialize the cost of enforcement onto the state.
And if the collateral holder doesn't want to return said collateral?
And while this may work(1) for a theatre-model (where the consumptive act can be funneled into a tightly-controlled venue (which is something I already posted about a few day ago, so I won't repeat that but what is necessary)), how is any mechanically reproduced media to be distributed to individuals? That is to say, DVD and Blu-ray and such media, electronic books for sure, and, possibly, physical ones as well, and any and, essentially all, material delivered to the individual for (relatively) private consumption.
(1)[And even then what of 'media laundering'? It may be illegal for a third party to interfere in a contract by, say, bribing the contract signer to break said contract and distribute an copy of the media in violation of contract, but, say, if one or the other party simply leaves it in the middle of the street and someone unassociated with any of the involved parties picks it up, they could then distribute their own copies of said media at will, legally.]
Under such a system, where does the contract into play? For example, your posts in this conversation, which are conveniently protected by copyright law as it stands now from being appropriated by myself, or any other reader, to use in whatever fashion we please. Should we have begun negotiating these posts before we knew what we were negotiating about?
> The two parties willingly choose a court to fall back on if their contract needs arbitration.
But, again, what does a decision one or more parties are not 'compelled' to follow matter? There are only two alternatives: either everyone agrees that they can't be held to account because they refuse on some kind of intellectual/moral/ethical grounds, in which case, the only consequence to being a bad actor is the likelihood of reduced future business with the offended entity (and even that is not assured, based on the state of the market, localized monopolies, power relations, etc), or it devolves into a shotgun wedding.
> The reason why copyright law has been perverted
From Tsarist Russia to the Act of Anne in Britain, copyright began as state censorship, so arguing for some 'golden age' (other than the vaguest wording in the U. S. constitution) is to ignore history.
We can use a simple hypothetical test for many of these issues: Say I read and memorize a book of poetry which statists and corporatists categorize as "copyrighted". I then go into my friend's house and tell him these poems aloud.
You either believe that I have the right to my own memories and I can talk to my friend or you think I should be fined/imprisoned to subsidize a particular business model.
Supposing there are only two alternatives and that the elimination of the one vindicates the other is at best intellectual laziness and at worst disingenuous.
One could posit you shouldn't be able to read poetry in the first place, so the rest becomes moot. And I would probably bet there are likely many more alternatives that someone more intelligent and more erudite than I could conceive.
First, you erred in thinking there only two poles in this argument. Then you erred by ascribing me to either one of them.
You, of course, are always free from this point forward (I wouldn't propose that you revisit all your former post as that would be an undue burden), but you are, of course, free from this point forward to prefix your further posts with: 'this post is hereby released under the terms of the CC0', or something equivalent.
>if the contract is violated and the violator taken to court and the court rules against them and they refuse to pay restitution?
If you're entering into a contract with someone and you're worried they won't pay restitution, mandate terms in the contract that require up-front collateral for a performance penalty. Problem solved.
Each person in the stage of production has the appropriate incentives to collect payment and protect their property. The reason why copyright law has been perverted is because there are distribution companies who'd rather not pony up performance capital and want to socialize the cost of enforcement onto the state.