[eridius]

The law doesn't grant rights. It merely protects them. And the laws weren't created in a vacuum either. Laws that protect IP rights exist because we as a society believe that IP rights are something worth protecting. Yes, the laws can become divorced from what regular citizens believe they should be; the prime example here is copyright law being extended to cover a crazy amount of time. But I've never heard anyone before express the idea that someone should lose the right to control their own source code after 20 years have passed.

[Nadya]

> Laws that protect IP rights exist because we as a society believe that IP rights are something worth protecting.

This is not always true. Laws for `X` often only exist because a few `donations` were made to the right organizations and some politicians were taken to a nice, fancy dinner by some lobbyists to "talk" about things. In an ideal world, lobbyists educate politicians to make better decisions. In reality the practice is closer to bribery by wine and dining politicians and making large donations to their organizations/charities/political party. So I do not agree with this claim - because I don't believe a large portion of society gives a damn about IP protection laws. Especially in instances where society "loses" because of it (eg. unused patents)

[dragonwriter]

> The law doesn't grant rights.

Yes, it explicitly does.

> It merely protects them.

Some people believe that certain legal rights reflect pre-existing natural rights. As I stated in GP, it is quite uncommon, though, even among proponents of natural property rights, to view the legal rights in intellectual property as being in that category.

If you believe the IP rights at issue here are natural rights, that's fine, but you should explicitly make the case (or admit that it's a moral axiom you adhere to), rather than just assuming it's an uncontroversial position, because, simply put, it's not.

[eridius]

It shouldn't be controversial to say that if you create source code, you own it. In this case the IP right mirrors the more conventional right of if you create a physical object, you own it. And this is no different than saying if you write a book, you own it. You're the first person I've ever see suggest that it's controversial to say that authorship == ownership. So no, I don't think I need to try and defend this position, because it's what literally the whole rest of the world already believes.

[dragonwriter]

> It shouldn't be controversial to say that if you create source code, you own

The entire idea of IP rights as natural rights (and more generally natural property rights in things which aren't naturally limited in concurrent use the way real and tangible personal property both are) is quite controversial, and even the idea of IP rights as useful policy independent of being natural rights (the position implict in the US Constitution and it's provision authorizing creation of such legal rights) is somewhat (though notably less) controversial.

> You're the first person I've ever see suggest that it's controversial to say that authorship == ownership.

The Free Software Foundation is among the many organizations and individuals explicitly rejecting the position that copyright is a natural right.

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.en....

[eridius]

I didn't realize the FSF adopted quite that position, but I tend to ignore them anyway. Also, the FSF isn't arguing for abolishing copyright, merely reducing its term.

In any case, I'm not sure arguments regarding copyright of written works are really all that interesting when talking about closed-source source code anyway. The source code isn't being published to begin with, so all of the usual arguments regarding length of copyright protection are kind of meaningless.

[dragonwriter]

> Also, the FSF isn't arguing for abolishing copyright, merely reducing its term.

Sure, but that's immaterial. FSF (and many others; again, this is the fairly explici Constitutional rationale) views copyright bit as a natural right, but as a legal right which is desirable, within certain bounds, because managed properly it can produce certain public benefits.

This is at odds with your apparent view that copyright is a natural right.

> The source code isn't being published to begin with, so all of the usual arguments regarding length of copyright protection are kind of meaningless.

The lack of publication actually doesn't render the arguments for time limitations moot, only the argument that copyright in such works provides a public benefit (though that can be remedied by altering the terms of mandatory deposit to apply, instead of within a set time after publication, to apply within a set time after creation, and to adopt as a consequence of deposit failure forfeiture of copyright.)

[dllthomas]

I think there's some ambiguity when you speak of "ownership of IP".

I don't think anyone disagrees that, when you create the first copy of a new work, that you own that copy (assuming it's not a work-for-hire or something).

There is definitely disagreement around whether you should be able to prevent other people you have given a copy from creating further copies. That ability is what it means to "own" a copyright. And I would argue that that is clearly not a natural right, though possibly something we nonetheless want to enable for some period of time.