""Intellectual property" is a contradictory concept. Claiming that ideas, thoughts, and other non-physical entities "belong" to someone is contradicting the very nature of the universe."
I never understood that point. That's like saying preventing murder is contradictory to the nature of humanity.
The point of societies is to make laws and enforce them, in a way that leads to everyone being better off. As far as I'm concerned, the argument against copyright should only be about whether it makes society better or not; it has nothing to do with morality, and definitely nothing to do with the nature of the universe.
There is an intrinsic cost to murdering someone that's not dependent on human laws. There is no intrinsic cost to reusing an idea, other than that made up by human laws.
I agree that the argument about copyright should be practical, not moral - which is why I'm opposed to starting the discussion from the point of view that authors have a moral right to preventing people from copying their creations. They don't.
I never understood that point. That's like saying preventing murder is contradictory to the nature of humanity.
The point of societies is to make laws and enforce them, in a way that leads to everyone being better off. As far as I'm concerned, the argument against copyright should only be about whether it makes society better or not; it has nothing to do with morality, and definitely nothing to do with the nature of the universe.