Copyright is a legal construct in its entirety. The perspective that there is a difference between which use cases are "allowed" for public-domain works absolutely is invalid.
If you are proposing some creating some new framework distinct from copyright for restricting the way people may adapt ideas originated by others to their own use cases, that calls for a great deal more explanation and argumentation than you've yet offered.
In relation to something that is entirely a legal construct (i.e. copyright) in the first place? Yes.
Just because there's currently no legal basis for something does not mean that the perspective that it shouldn't happen is invalid
Copyright is a legal construct in its entirety. The perspective that there is a difference between which use cases are "allowed" for public-domain works absolutely is invalid.
If you are proposing some creating some new framework distinct from copyright for restricting the way people may adapt ideas originated by others to their own use cases, that calls for a great deal more explanation and argumentation than you've yet offered.
6 replies →
But you haven't presented a first-principles argument for why that perspective is valid, other than saying that you can see a difference.
2 replies →
Some jurisdiction have the concept of “moral rights”.