jim stone wrote:Caj wrote:jim stone wrote:It's hard to believe these moral principles plausibly extend so far.
!!!!!! There is no moral basis behind copyright law whatsoever.
Copyright and patent law is statutory, like a speed limit. It is on the books only because it advances a public good, not because there is anything inherently immoral about the speed of 56MPH or building an invention that is less than 14 years old.
There is no natural or moral right to keep other people from repeating what you have said, or controlling the re-use of your stories, tunes, characters etc. These are not like property rights which are natural rights based on an obvious moral code.
I think this is very important because major copyright holders try very hard to make copyrights seem like natural or moral rights. They repeatedly call copyright infringement "stealing," which is legally false, in hopes that you will incorrectly associate copyrights with physical property.
But stealing my wallet is wrong because I have a natural right to my own property. It is nothing like a copyright, which is artificial and only granted as an incentive for me to create.
Again I will not quarrel. I observe only the
following: If I'm right, Dale's appeal to ethical principles
to motivate his new policy is doubtful; if you're right,
Dale's appeal to ethical principles to motivate his
new policy is a non-starter.
Either way the policy cannot be motivated plausibly
by ethical principles.
Neither one applies. The policy is simply practical: Dale doesn't want trouble, is all. That, not the question of ethics, has been the basis of his appeal, as I read it, and I don't see anything wrong with it. He has enough to do and concern himself with already without fielding inquiries from authors. Simple as that.