This is a way of expressing what Kant said about lying and morality. A liar presumes the existence and practice of a moral rule against lying, but makes an exception of themself -- that is the only way their action makes sense and is profitable.
IP is a priori immoral because it fails moral universalisation. If we all shared what we produced freely, we would all gain (a thousandfold, a millionfold ...), and at no cost to each other. If we all had to be equally bound by restrictions and payments and legal action, we would all lose.
The only way IP, as a principle rather than pragmatically, can make sense is as an immoral intention.
(This is the funny thing about 'natural rights' arguments for IP: they all fail universalisation, trivially and obviously. It is odd they get much respect at all.)
And the actual practice does seem to follow the morality. Just as the article describes, where groups have power to choose, they tend to waive the rules for themselves, and just enforce them for everyone else.
I'd guess you've been voted you down because you're talking in philosophy and not connecting it to practical matters.
For what it's worth, I'd recommend you do this: find a way to make your case in a practical way. Then explain that this situation is an analogy to what Kant said and give people clear links to that. Then explain the philosophical issue.
IP is a priori immoral because it fails moral universalisation. If we all shared what we produced freely, we would all gain (a thousandfold, a millionfold ...), and at no cost to each other. If we all had to be equally bound by restrictions and payments and legal action, we would all lose.
The only way IP, as a principle rather than pragmatically, can make sense is as an immoral intention.
(This is the funny thing about 'natural rights' arguments for IP: they all fail universalisation, trivially and obviously. It is odd they get much respect at all.)
And the actual practice does seem to follow the morality. Just as the article describes, where groups have power to choose, they tend to waive the rules for themselves, and just enforce them for everyone else.