|
(I'm going to disagree with you in my comment, about your specific thoughts - but given the context of the thread we're talking in, let me be clear - this is a horrific attack that happened no matter what you think about IP, and nothing I'm saying below should in any way make it seem like I think otherwise. This kind of violence is horrible, and not the answer to anything). > Yet here intellectual property has scaled beyond mere value into critical relevance and even a person's identity itself. I mean, do you really think JK Rowling shouldn't consider "I wrote Harry Potter" to be part of her identity? > In reality once an idea is communicated it is free. If by "in reality" you mean "in nature, given that we don't have a government to change it", then, yes, of course, if I tell you an idea and you decide to use it, there is little I can do to stop you. But that's exactly why we have governments and laws - to not live only by nature, but to do things that we think makes more sense, both on a moral level, and a pure "what's better for society" level. And say what you want, I think most people don't share your feeling that someone's work being copied without them getting any compensation for it is somehow more moral, and should be the way things work. I certainly don't share that intuition. |
Devil's advocate: sure, but that's different than considering "I am the originator of the concept of a story about a boy who goes to wizard school".