> and it's deeply morally wrong (theft-adjacent) to take someone else's work without compensating them on their terms. But I'm willing to bet that you don't be

> and it's deeply morally wrong (theft-adjacent) to take someone else's work without compensating them on their terms. But I'm willing to bet that you don't believe this consistently across domains, and the domains in which you do believe it have been selected rather arbitrarily, not by you but rather by industry lobbying pressure. Copyright doesn't exist for mathematics, jokes, fashion designs, architectural styles, recipes, and many other areas of human work. All of these represent similar creative work to the work done by musicians and writers. But we don't force comedians to license each others' jokes, or sue bars for letting people tell unlicensed jokes in public. And almost all of us wear clothing by uncompensated designers. And of course it would be unfathomably destructive to allow something analogous to copyright for a mathematical idea. We also set limits on how long heirs can inherit copyright, which we don't do for other kinds of property, and we don't have any moral issues with that. So it's important to remember that our moral intuitions about work and material products don't really translate to information and that we are truly making all of this up as we go along, under the intense corrupting pressure of a few very sophisticated industry lobbies.