[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.