2What is the consequentialist justification for laws that give ownership and control of software to individuals or corporations (proprietary software)?
What is the basic dilemma in giving individuals the ownership and control of software they wrote? Is there any alternative to working with privately-owned (proprietary) software
Answers
Consequentialism of course considers the real-world results of ethical decisions, as opposed to the non-consequential systems that say there are principles that must be applied no matter who gets hurt. If we follow Kant’s nonconsequentialist moral system, when the Gestapo asks if we have any Jews hiding in our homes we must tell the truth; a consequentialist like Hume would say it’s proper to lie to them if it saves a life.
Intellecvtual property laws are conceived as encouraging creative work by ensuring that the creator has a period of time in which to profit from the work. So if I take the time and effort to learn how to program and then I create a useful bit of software, it either belongs to me or to the company that paid me to make it. In essence, if I do good work, I deserve to get paid.
It’s that simple, I think. If we don’t protect the creative work for its creator, where’s the incentive to do that work?