[monknomo]

So what? Why should the state grant you a monopoly at all?

The reason is to encourage people to create useful writings and make useful discoveries. But we need to balance this encouragement with the benefit we get by making these writings and discoveries available to everyone. By granting a time-bound monopoly the state rewards creators, and by ensuring this time period is not excessive, spreads the benefit among the populace.

Plus, with a time bound benefit, you have to keep on creating, which is good for everyone under this regime.

These aren't, like, inherent rights, they are contingent

[altmanaltman]

The point isn't why the state should grant me (or writers) a monopoly. But rather, why should the principle not be applied to all property and ownership and not just copyright for creative works? Why should one lose ownership over their said work if they are a writer but they shouldn't lose ownership of their trade secrets because they are a high-frequency trader? Or more so, why should only the creative field worry about the public better good when it comes to ownership and property? The conversation for public domain must extend to everything and not just works or art if one really believes in it.

[lsaferite]

Funny that you are comparing Copyrights and Trade Secrets. The monopoly granted on Copyright is predicated on it being published. Trade Secrets, by definition, are not published. Copyright is granted based on the value to the public provided by the author publishing their works. Trade Secrets have no such protection as they are not meant for the public good. They have other protection from theft, but once they are published, there is no protection of the information.

[altmanaltman]

Copyright does not depend on publication. In most countries (including the U.S. and those following the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works), copyright arises automatically the moment an original work is fixed in a tangible medium. And there is no actual legal justification for it to be "meant for the public good" in law or policy.

One philosophical justification for copyright is that it encourages creators to produce and eventually share creative works. But the law doesn't ask whether a work provides public value before granting copyright.

You are undermining the argument by including your faulty understanding of law and missing the bigger point. I am not saying copyright and trade secrets are treated the same in terms of protection by law, I am saying they should be. Because as a writer, I do not want to give my life's work away and let people do whatever they want with it. I want it to stay in my family and I should have the legal right to do it. If that means registering a company and using other laws to protect my work, so be it, but it is not meant to be given away for "public good" in my opinion just because its a work of art.