We grant limited monopolies on created works to incentivize the creation of the works, but that's it. There's no deeper moral grounding. Words you put out into the world don't belong to you anymore; they created impressions in the minds of other people and those impressions belong to those other people, by natural right.
You're right that it's just as sound a property right as every other, but it's one that cuts remarkably against the grain of the underlying natural rights (for a specific perceived societal benefit), and it should always be evaluated as such.
Every generation should be asking "Does the current copyright regime create more good than harm?" And every generation should correct if the answer is 'no.'
Literally everyone from the richest of commercial interests to the kumbaya-est of libre interests will disagree.
Natural rights are fairly easily thumbnail-sketched by "What are your rights if you're on a desert island?" Out of the context of any preexisting society, what rights would you have?
On a desert island, if I find some words scrawled ten feet high on a cliffside, I may do with the ideas in those words what I will: copy them, change them 'round, claim they came from me, claim they came from god. Similarly if I hear some mountain hermit shouting them from their cave. The natural rights as apply to ideas are very, very liberal. We in modern societies (and only recently) have taken up the experiment of constraining those rights with temporarily and contextual monopolies to incentivize creation of more ideas via property law. This works, but in a clunky, hackish way; it is a strange kind of "theft" that leaves us with more of something than when we started.
And like all good wild hacks, it deserves to be considered for refactoring frequently.
So are you saying authors don't deserve any compensation for their work unless they produce books in physical form?
Because remember when you say an author “deserves” to be paid you are saying the state should use its monopoly on violence to make that happen.
Perhaps it’s best not to use straw men and loaded terms designed to emotionally appeal to five year olds when discussing enclosure of the intellectual commons?
Yes, that's how property rights - and in fact all rights afforded through civilized society - are enforced. If you have a problem with that take it up with literally the entirety of recorded human history.
You are confusing rights that are created by the threat of violence, such as copyright, and rights that are protected by the threat of violence, such as the right to not be killed for no reason.
Needless to say there is no inherent right for an author to profit from copyright. It is a wholly constructed right. They do not "deserve" it. Perhaps a society chooses to organize itself that way and perhaps it doesn't. On the other hand, innocent people really do deserve to not get murdered.
I think they shouldn't be attached to that old business model in a world where self-publishing is possible.
I also think generous UBI should exist, but I guess that's another issue.
The key point is remembering that copyright isn't some divine right stemming from the muses blessing the author with their own exclusively-owned words; it's a right societies fabricate because we believe it will incentivize people to build new knowledge that eventually benefits everyone. It's that incentivization that's the goal.
I do think UBI should be a minimum, and people should still receive compensation for work they produce that people enjoy. Just not exclusive rights and perpetual royalties and all this nonsense.
I don't much care to get into who deserves what when we're talking about a property right constructed to create general societal benefit. I will instead observe that you haven't gone after anybody at Hacker News for the money they're not paying you to write comments.
Do you think you deserve compensation for these writings? Why not?
The digital nature of a work doesn't matter. It says right there on the tin, intellectual property; a la any work ("property") that is a product of human intellect.
For an example I'm sure most people can relate to, you probably know that "cut grass smell" when you mow your lawn? That's the grass throwing out chemical signals telling other grass "Hey! Something cut me down! Be warned!".
While whether this can count as intelligence or sentience is worthy of further debate, to say that trees don't feel anything is a gross mistake.
Actually, I'm not categorically opposed to the notion, but I think you need to bring a lot to the table to explain why things without nervous systems feel pain. If the default assumption is that all complex systems feel pain then I wonder if you think things like jetstreams, economies and the internet feels pain.
> that "cut grass smell" when you mow your lawn? That's the grass throwing out chemical signals telling other grass "Hey! Something cut me down! Be warned!".
So is it immoral to cut grass?
Note that I didn't say they feel pain, just that they can feel what is done to them by the environment around them and respond appropriately.
The fact trees don't speak human plays a big role in us not understanding them, but they do clearly feel and express things whatever they may be.
>So is it immoral to cut grass?
Considering most of it is done for purely aesthetic purposes to satisfy human egos, arguably yes.
Note that whether it's moral or not is tangent to whether it can be done or not. We humans do plenty of immoral things without a care in the world.
Well, I never said "they feel nothing", but if you're saying plants have a right to life because they feel "something" I'm wondering where you draw the line. If you're something of a panpsychist I'm actually ok with these conclusions in terms of metaphysical consistency.
And people who say they don't almost always are roleplaying that they don't for the sake of argument and can be immediately exposed as holding a contradiction in their values with the most basic pressure/consistency tests.
That's not a comparable argument because your belongings have a material effect on at least one sentient entity.
Instead what if you were given the power to expunge everything in the universe outside of our solar system. Would that be acceptable?
That's not a comparable argument because you haven't been properly compensated as authors of the printed word are. If you received a dime for every snuffed-out star, would it then be acceptable?
Of course if you were to argue that downsizing the universe represents an intangible loss to humanity as a whole, we are have returned to ground zero in which it is ironic that exterminating trees provides a net benefit to humanity.