> The entire legal edifice around recognizing and protecting intellectual property is an entirely artificial construct
The presence of “natural” vs. “artificial” argument is a placeholder for nonexistent substantiation. There is never a case when it does anything else but add a disguise of objectivity to some wild opinion.
Artificial as opposed to what? Do you consider what humans do is “unnatural” because humans are somehow not part of nature?
If some humans (in case of big tech abusing copyright, vast majority, once the realization reaches the masses) want something and other humans don’t, what exactly makes one natural and another unnatural other than your own belonging to one group or the other?
> that goes against the nature of information and knowledge
What is that nature of information and knowledge that you speak about?
> forcing information to behave like physical goods, so it's not unfair to the creators in an economy that's built around trading physical goods
Its point has been to encourage innovation, creativity, and open information sharing—exactly those things that gave us ML and LLMs. We would have none of these in that rosy land of IP communism where no idea or original work belongs to its author that you envision.
Recognition of intellectual ownership of original work (coming in many shapes, including control over how it is distributed, ability to monetize it, and just being able to say you have done it) is the primary incentive for people to do truly original work. You know, the work that gave us GNU Linux et al., true innovation that tends to come when people are not giving their work to their employer in return for paycheck.
> IP laws were built on moral arguments, so it's only fair to change them on moral grounds too.
That is, perhaps, the exact point of people who argue that copyright law should be changed or at least clarified as new technology appears.