Don't use the products whose creators' values you don't agree with.
It's even easier in software with its widespread and thriving open source ecosystem.
Yet you don't seem to promote that. Instead, you seem to promote the idea that people who want stuff should be able to impose THEIR values on the creators of that stuff.
If you make a coffee table out of wood from a sustainable forest, does it belong to you? What causes it to become personal property?
If you make a coffee table out of code from a second life engine, does it belong to you? What causes it to not be personal property?
What if the coffee table you make in VR is made from "wood" tokenized on a blockchain that cost money to generate the electrons for?
Your examination concludes that things made from your invention and/or labor rendered in atoms are property, but from your invention and/or labor rendered in electrons are not? Or one form of labor has a right to earn a living, the other does not?
Until we achieve a post-scarcity world -- where life-time is included in scarcity -- that thinking seems both wishful and facile.
> What causes it to not be personal property?
My baseline is that things are not property, so justifying the absence of property is a foreign concept to me. I'm curious why people would tend toward assuming property and then rationalizing away property in certain contexts. The assumption of property has consequences so enormous that I cannot authentically assume it as my default. Again, really interested to hear what made people chose that as their default.
A coffee table made of code can be used by an infinite number of people in an infinite number of virtual living rooms. Everyone who wants to use it is able to, and everyone can have one in their living room without conflict. Since there is no conflict, there is no need for anyone to decide its resolution.