The right to intellectual property isn't a natural right like the right to physical property. The Constitution states that intellectual property (i.e. copyrights and patents) exist to serve the purpose of encouraging innovation. The RIAA, MPAA and software patent trolls' abuse of these rules serves to hinder innovation, and therefore these rules should be revised.
I don't think there's anything especially revolutionary in what I just stated.
Nothing really is a natural right. Nature is not a lawmaker. All rights, rules, and laws are simply what we define them to be. The laws of physics are about the only absolute laws out there. Watch out for people using the word "natural". Whenever they mention this word, they use it to mean whatever suits them best. It's from the 101 guide to critical reading: the use of the word "natural" is a huge red flag for someone trying to sell you their politics.
It may seem natural that it is hard to make copies of physical objects, but just wait 10-40 years (depending on who you ask) until 3D printers become commonplace, and then reevaluate what you consider to be natural.
I'm not a huge fan of corporations like Disney; however, I have a feeling that we are not using the proper ammunition when we attack them based on what our idea of "natural" rights is. As a programmer, I feel that following logical rules should not be encumbered by patents. As an artist, I get pissed when someone tries to imitate me without proper credit, and I feel fully justified in using legal means to stop them. I guess this means that I believe (so far) that abstract algorithms should not be patentable while software implementations (which carry not just algorithms but also a cultural component) as applied to specific problems should be. I know some people try to make them both patentable -- I am against that.
>I guess this means that I believe (so far) that abstract algorithms should not be patentable while software implementations (which carry not just algorithms but also a cultural component) as applied to specific problems should be.
How do you distinguish between the two? If you come up with a revolutionary new cryptography algorithm and implement it in C, you would only be able to patent that implementation. If I came along later and merely re-implemented your innovation in Python, I could free-ride off your innovation without paying you a cent. Is that right or fair? I don't honestly know. What I do know is that its dreadfully hard to separate concept from implementation in a field as abstract as programming.
