|
|
|
|
|
|
by ATsch
1424 days ago
|
|
|
I'm not sure about IP rights, but saying natural rights derive from property rights, which this sounds like, is pretty popular in right wing libertarian circles. The idea being that if you own yourself, all human rights become property rights. This is the basis of things like Ayn Rand's "objectivism", a philisophy effectively claiming to have solved morality once and for all. It is, of course, clearly nonsense if you try to use it for anything more than justify unfettered capitalism or drug legalization. Most famously being unable to effectively condemn things like pedophilia, slave contracts or human trafficking. But this exact ability to come to counterintuitive conclusions about many things means it remains very popular among certain groups of people. |
|
|
But it’s a distorsion of free market!
Not versed into philosophical currents, but very-right-wing people would claim that it’s not the role of the state to protect one’s IP rights, much less at least than protecting their physical integrity (at least every citizen has a body, as opposed to patents); The sponsor of the state to protect patents or copyright is effectively a “bribe” of states towards some private citizen, for something which is incredibly costly and unfair to prevent (think “The state guarantees me against the harm of my ideas getting used by everybody”), and therefore constitutes a unfair advantage, a misuse of public power, and a distortion of free market in favor of IP owners. Frequently seen when large corporations alter governments to tilt the balance to their advantage.
In a ideally liberal state, Microsoft would keep its secrets for itself OR choose to publish, but if you succeed to decompile, then Windows becomes effectively open-source, and you wouldn’t have such monopolistic behaviors enforced with the help of public taxes. But then the USA wouldn’t be hegemonic.