My take is literally the only take grounded in reality.
I will pay you ten thousand dollars if you can come up with a set of axioms that define 1) physical property rights 2) slavery 3) copyright and patent laws, where #3 are #1 but not #2.
FWIW, I probably lean slightly closer to your side of the spectrum than most, and even I feel this take is extreme.
He absolutely has no right to break into Person A's home or force Person A to give him information.
It just says that if Person A publishes information, Person B has a right to republish, remix, and reuse as he sees fit.
Person A has no slaveholder rights over Person B.
So you disagree with most open source licenses like the GNU GPL, as well as the Creative Commons licenses?
GNU GPL doesn't let you reuse things "as you see fit". It requires you to also disclose the source code for your products.
The Creative Common licenses may or may not enforce attribution, non-commercial usage and share-alike.
Not saying you're wrong (although...), but your views on the topic seem to disagree with a lot of well established, respected things.
Yes!
I think they are a clever maneuver to weaponize (c)opywrong laws against themselves. But they are short-sighted.
Ultimately the solution is to Amend the Constitution. The idea of "Licenses" on Ideas is repulsive when you think about what that means from root, and the goal should be to get rid of such a concept all together, like we got rid of the concept of Licenses on People. FSF, EFF, and CC should come together and realize this and take a real stand. Go on the offense.
https://breckyunits.com/the-intellectual-freedom-amendment.h...
I don't buy the "exert control over another person in their home" argument. I'm not sure why laws about information rise to the level of "slavery" in your view. I think even calling digital items simply "information" is a bit of a (likely intentional) misclassification.
I think there are a ton of problems with the way we handle digital materials from a legal standpoint, and I do think vast swaths should be more freely available, and that the length of copyright and other laws are way too long. So I'm sympathetic, to a point. But the argument you make in the above post isn't really convincing, even to me (someone who likely leans closer to your PoV than many here).
Yes, it is an appeal to emotion but it's also rooted in logic. The "intellectual property" lie is also an appeal to emotion (attempting to falsely piggy back on anti-communist sentiment, even though (c)opywrongs and patents are actually anti-property rights) but not rooted in logic.
> Can you either expand further on your argument
If you program a multi-agent simulation of the world and define slaves and masters you'd have:
class Person
class Slave extends Person
askOnDate(recipient)
if (this.master.grantsPermission())
super.askOnDate(recipient)
sendFile(recipient, file)
if (file.master.grantsPermission())
super.sendFile(recipient, file)
class Master extends Person
That is the framing I don't buy
I am not sure if you will understand this—if you are willing to take red pill—as I've found the saying "it is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on not understanding it" to be quite accurate.
If your business model depends upon restricting the freedoms of other people, pivot until you have a better business model.