> Humans didn't evolve with 'information' in the sense that we're using it now. What information we did have (e.g. where the enemy is, how to cut stone and buil

> Humans didn't evolve with 'information' in the sense that we're using it now. What information we did have (e.g. where the enemy is, how to cut stone and build bridges) was guarded either by force or by complexity of replication. That seems to be an anachronistic view through the eyes of a modern myth of commerce. One would expect information was shared. Proto-humans who could not or would not share information -- hence crippling co-operation -- would have been out-competed by those that did, so de-selected by evolution. What is more central to being human than language, that is, communication of information? It did not evolve by guarding it and restricting it. > we've created the Intellectual Property construct in an effort to apply what we think of as 'natural' rules to intangible things. That is really quite distant from fact or sense. IP was created as a means of censorship and/or monopoly. And the idea that IP is somehow 'natural' is completely upside-down. Intangible/abstract objects are quite natural on their own: they have their own natural qualities distinct from material objects -- it is being freely and infinitely communicable and copyable that makes them exactly what they naturally are.