Comment by michaelmrose
3 years ago
What we actually need to prove is whether such technology is a net benefit to society all else is essentially hand waving. There is no natural right to poorly named intellectual property and even if there was such a matter would never be decided based on the outcome of a philosophical argument because we don't decide anything that way.
How do you measure "benefit", and what does "net" actually mean?
Well what normally happens when something new clearly doesn't exactly fit within existing laws and practices is a bunch of rich people consider whether there is more money to be made if its legal and if it is they give some portion of the money they expect to make in the first year to lawmakers, sometimes in the form of gold bars, and it becomes legal.
Sarcasm aside there is no moral right to ANY intellectual property. It's not a positive expression of a natural right its a negative imposition of restriction upon everyone else. It's a statement that if I take my pen and paper and write the same words that you now own my pen my paper and my labor. It adds friction to the distribution of knowledge, impoverishes the world, keeps some knowledge that might have come into being from ever being generated for lack of the knowledge that failed to travel and all the good that could have therefore been done, undone.
It is justifiable only if the minimal restrictions we are willing to impose on net supports the creation of works that enrich society more than the restrictions impoverish it.
I'm not sure you can effectively measure it and would as soon just see IP law excepting only part of trademark law to prevent fraudulent knock offs and scams go entirely down the crapper.
None of that made any sense.
> such technology is a net benefit to society all else is essentially hand waving
Some might have said this about cars ... yet, here we are. Cars are definitely the opposite, except for longer-distance travel.
Our decisions are based on what we think is a net benefit not what is.