> Until you pick one and stick to it, you are just putting out noise.
Perhaps I should not have denied the benefit to society. After some reflection, I believe that too. Of course, finding a balance is a difficult prospect. Some protection will increase the production of what falls under IP, which benefits all of us, but too much will hurt society.
So, where does the maxima lie? No, I don't know, but the huge amount of piracy on the Internet probably isn't it. Short term benefit, long-term detriment.
As for the moral right: I like to believe in reciprocity. We only function as a society if we work together. Now, if a person invests some effort into making something, and I don't compensate them, doesn't that harm them? They've spent the time to make it, but they receive nothing in return for the effort.
If nobody uses the fruits of their labour, fair enough, that's too bad. It was a miscalculation. But what if people do use it? They are deriving benefit from that person's efforts, yet the person has gained nothing in return. Said person needs to live off something in a capitalist society. People aren't giving them the necessities of life for free.
Now, if that person invests the effort, and releases it OSS or freeware, then the person never expected to derive benefit, other than the approval of his or her peers. They will have taken that into account, and budgeted their time accordingly. They'll have another line of work, or some other means of supporting themself. Maybe they'll go the support route.
If the person did it with the expectation of being paid, but nobody does even though benefitting from the work, how is that just? Imagine yourself in that person's shoes: you see people using everything you've spent month or years working on, yet despite your request they pay you for your work, nobody does.
Now, I've told you why I believe what I do. You tell me what's wrong with this:
> They have a moral right to get paid for work they perform if others use the results of their labour.