Yes, copying is fundamentally moral/ethical. (Although where it conflicts with a law, like copyright, it is another question -- does the law have precedence?)

Yes, copying is fundamentally moral/ethical. (Although where it conflicts with a law, like copyright, it is another question -- does the law have precedence?) (As I have written in other places:) To evaluate something morally, we can follow Kant (in 'Groundwork For The Metaphysic Of Morals'), whose fundamental moral rule is: Act only if the maxim of your action can be willed as a universal law. That is, we ask: would we want an action to become a general law? If a digital object is good, then copying it duplicates and spreads that good. And the incidental cost of copying is practically nothing. We can certainly wish this were a general law: if everyone copied freely and widely, we would all benefit – we would all receive very much more good, and at negligable cost. You might say there is a loss to the originator, in losing an exclusive advantage. But that really has a hidden presupposition of some social or legal construction like copyright: there is nothing intrinsic in the actions or materials that suggests or requires exclusivity. Abstracts are naturally copyable. Everyone knows and expects that. And ultimately everyone benefits from it. The copyability of things is like a free natural resource. It should be exploited and used as much as possible. That is the message of the ethical argument. The sad thing is that the copyright/patent/IP attitude has become so inculcated that many people no longer see the underlying truth.