yoni45 wrote:Qaanol wrote:We only tolerate such government-sponsored intrusions and restrictions of my rights, because the sum total effect, on balance, over long periods of time, with large numbers of ideas being created, is purported to bring about even more benefit than the harm it causes me and people like me...
This has already been shown to be patently false numerous times, as documents like the UDHR clearly do not do so solely for the reasons you cite (and the UDHR has been voted on favorably and adopted by much of the Western world).
You have provided one piece of evidence, an argument-by-authority (that’s a fallacy, remember?) citing the UDHR (which itself also makes clear that people have other rights too, rights which are obviously infringed by IP exclusivity).
Even if we grant that authors have a right to prevent others from making copies of their work—which I don’t, but for the sake of argument I will explore the possibility—even if we grant that right to authors, that in no way detracts from the point that individuals also have rights to do what they want with their own property, and to distribute information (speech) freely, and to participate in culture. So, even if we grant that “authors have the right to stop others from copying them”, then any act of exercising that right must necessarily infringe on other rights.
It presents a conflict of rights. And then it becomes a questions of how “strong” each right is, and how much “tradeoff” of rights on one side balances the other side. So, even if we grant the unsubstantiated claim you’re basing your argument on, and suppose authors have the right to stop others from copying them, we still end up at exactly the same end-point, where we seek a balance between protecting works for some duration, and making them freely accessible thereafter.
The principle differences, then, are that your position rests on a “right to deny others their own rights”, and it completely ignores net benefit to society and accelerating the march of progress in arts and innovation. You are trying to balance one so-called “right” against many obvious natural rights that it infringes, whereas I am trying to balance the benefit to society against those same obvious natural rights.