Law evolves and the law of copyright in particular is ripe for "disruption" - and I say this not as one who opposes the idea of copyright but, on the contrary, as one who strongly supports it. It is right that the author of a creative work get protection for having conceived that work and reduced it to tangible form. Developers do this all the time with their code. So too do many, many others. Many today disagree wit…
> It is right that the author of a creative work get protection for having conceived that work and reduced it to tangible form. This is incorrect (and I didn't grow up in the digital age, unless you call 4 function calculators the "digital age"). There is no such right. It is not a human right, nor is it something that you are intrinsically entitled to have. Copyright is something that is endowed upon you by the gove…
I disagree with that. To the extent that any rights are "natural" or "human" (as opposed to all rights being creations of the government), I think copyright is entitled to that status more so than say rights in land. My back yard is something that was here before I was born and will be here after I die. I had nothing to do with its creation, and I just bought it from somebody who bought it from somebody who stole it from the Indians. How on earth do I have a greater, more fundamental, right to that than to something I created out of non-existence?
If you build a business, you build it on the back of government-educated workers commuting on government-built roads, etc. "You didn't build that" and whatnot. But we consider you to have a moral entitlement to own and control your business, without assuming society has any special right to it other than universal obligations like paying taxes. But creative works--while they are influenced by society to a degree--are to a much greater extent singular products of creation. But you want to say you don't have a moral entitlement to it?