Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="SableWyvern" data-source="post: 9885930" data-attributes="member: 1008">I presume that [USER=7031982]@Bill Zebub[/USER] is referring to control of copying or control of the concept. Ownership of the original, physcial work was always treated the same as ownership of any discrete physical object, but limiting who may make copies or make use of an idea/process is a very recent development.The initial purpose of copyright and patents is not to protect a moral right to control distribution of a work for it's own sake, but to encourage creators to create by giving them a temporary monopoly on profiting from that work and copies thereof. I think that is a laudable intention, but sincerely believe copyright is an artificial right, not an inherent, moral one. Information wants to be free, and copyright and patents are a block on the natural order of things. It's worth noting the both the copyright and patent processes were created on the basis that works entering the public domain is of benefit to society and I, for one, certainly hold the position that releasing works and inventions to the public domain is a much greater good and moral imperative than protecting IP. The period of protection is a necessary evil, intended to achieve a greater gain, not any sort of inherent moral good.None of which is any attempt by me to weigh on in the AI discussion, just some thoughts on the moral value of IP law generally.</blockquote>