I mean… I kinda get it, but nowadays it’s starting to get absurd.
Ah, so what is the incentive to develop complex things when anyone can just copy it?
Are you serious? Maybe so people can live better and create things that are even better and more helpful? Or is “for the betterment of humanity” not a good enough reason to do things for you? I know not everyone has the time/money/ability to be focusing all their time on helping people but this is such a depressing question.
You don’t need to have “intellectual property” to create new and complex things, or how did humanity functioned before the term (only legal, by the way) was created? All art and inventions of the past are remixes or reinventions of past works, it is communal creation, (made by human for human, in case there are those who think AI does the same, which it does not).
Just because intellectual property can be voluntarily relinquished to great effect doesn’t mean the option to retain it should be abolished.
But that is not the point the other comment was making. It said that there is no incentive to create something and innovate if anyone can just copy it, and the whole FLOSS movement is a prove that is not the case. Same thing with the argument against UBI that would remove the insentive for people to work.
You can have other justification for IP, but that was the one the commenter gave and it is empirically false.
