> Copyright and patents only appeared in the 18th century. I find the argument that copyright and patents appear only recently in historical terms unconvincing

> Copyright and patents only appeared in the 18th century. I find the argument that copyright and patents appear only recently in historical terms unconvincing. Following that line of reasoning shoudln't we be even more wary of e.g. universal suffrage and civil rights laws? Moreover, that these laws occured relatively late in human history is IMO unsurprising, even to be expected given the state of human evolution. At the risk dilettantism, here's what Wikipedia has to say about the history of "copyright": > Copyright was invented after the advent of the printing press and with wider public literacy. Whether or not one agrees with copyright law, I would argue that the relevant laws followed technological innovations at some lag -- and did not just appear randomly or as a result of some kind of conspiracy. Wikipedia puts the original date for Patents at 500BC, but if you read a few sentences further the industrial revolution appears. So again, the argument applies: effort expended on legal action followed effort expended on technological process, at some lag. And even if we look before the industrial revolution, and before the printing press, history provides us with a wealth of examples of groups of individuals trying to preserve or protect their "edge" in crafts (often acquired through hard work and ingenuity, sometimes, through fortune), techniques, or otherwise "patentable" methods, with often far higher consequences than what are being proposed currently. (Though, admittedly, that means nothing.) I'm thinking for example of guilds of various forms throughout Mideaval Europe, as well as China. My knowledge in this area is not that extensive, but there are a few colourful examples in "The Rise and Decline of Nations" by Mancur Olson, e.g. IIRC one guild in China collectively biting another master to death for taking on too many apprentices (copies!) for fashioning gold leaf -- gold leaf for the king (no less), whose protection was worth nothing to him in the face of the guild's desire to protect its "IP". So I think a case can be made that IP of some form has been around for a long, long time; it's not some accident brought about by a single, poorly-written law. It's not a relatively recent, arcane (thus exploitable) area of justice. Mankind has been grappling with these issues, these tradeoffs, for as long as human progress has existed, and will presumably continue to do so at each "singularity". It's right and proper that we have this debate; it's right and proper that the creative industries demand a say in new technologies, insofar as those technologies depend on the transmission of creative works to be interesting and demanded. > The RIAA's version of morality is not handed down from Heaven, you know: its rectitude is at least as questionable as its practicality. Agreed, sadly, none in the filesharing camp has offered anything even remotely resembling morality. You tend to see something along the lines of "I'm not talking about morality, I'm just giving you reality etc" (followed by "want some of my cash? dance, bitch!").