Quote:
Originally Posted by Aramike
|
In practice, this is already more or less happening with copyright (how many people
really get bagged for BTing - it is effectively a lawless land), but while the guys are complaining, I still see plenty of adequately motivated people.
The entire concept of copyright and patenting is really an anti-freedom measure. It cannot, IMO, be really justified deontologically (like the freedom of speech might), and certainly not enough to override a higher freedom.
It has been argued that if some thief is running off with your property, and your only options are to gun him down or let him off, you are morally obliged to let him run off with your property because Property rights are deontologically subordinate to the Right of Life. The situation with Intellectual Property is similar, if it can even be justified deontologically at all it is at the bottom of the totem pole.
Thus, its entire justification is utilitarian, and the present flow actually suggests that the utilitarian justification isn't as good as theorized, which leaves the loss side.
Probably, some KIND of copyright and patent law is required - the current de facto near loss of control situation with copyright doesn't seem to be hurting creativity very much (and the number of people actually
benefitting from creativity has clearly increased!), but admittedly we aren't sure what will happen if the loss of control becomes pro forma.
However, it is IMO quite clear that the current copyright and patent laws are very broken on the side of the big corporations and the current copyright law (based on the hoardes of BTers) can't even be seriously enforced. A properly reformed copyright law will probably have a greater moral justification, which may actually improve voluntary compliance.