Originally Posted by Jozawun
never having been any valid moral or ethical justification for monopoly intellectual property rights.
So what is the basis to decide if a justification IS ethically valid or not?
Without IP protection a creator receives sure payment for 1st copy only. As every copist could ask for. Thus only the transfer from mind to medium is credited. Just the manual and none of the mental part of the creators work. This would declare the creative process worthless. Only by granting "shares" in copies created you honour the fact that without the creators minds work the physical copies wouldn't exist.
IMHO the decision whether we value labour of mind and creativity or if we limit this to physical
activity only is very much a decision based on ethics because if we would limit our judgements to physical consequences only a lot more than property would be differently judged:
No intent or motives checked: there goes the diference between accident, self-defence and murder.
No relevance of feelings: parenting=breeding;