[User23]

Consenting to an immoral deal doesn’t make it moral.

As for whether or not reducing the availability of information is immoral, that obviously depends on what the information in question is. I’m unfamiliar with Joe Rogan’s work so I have no opinion on this particular case.

Edit: Based on the replies I wasn’t sufficiently clear. I don’t believe the Rogan deal is immoral because I have no belief about it’s morality or lack thereof at all. If you insist on a moral judgment that I feel ill-informed to make, then I’ll speculate that the deal probably was moral.

[mmastrac]

How is it immoral? He was paid a significant sum for it. IP is all about limiting information in exchange for money (generally).

I'm all in favour of reducing copyright power/length, but outside of mandatory licensing there are very few circumstances where locking IP up would be outside the scope.

[kelnos]

Even if it was an immoral deal (I'm not convinced), we're not talking about someone who was coerced into a deal due to predatory practices or an exploitative power imbalance.

Rogan wanted to give control over his catalog in exchange for heaping gobs of money. He didn't have to do this if he didn't want to (he was already independently wealthy), but he did want to, so he did it, and was not harmed in any way.