>>13307In effect that means that copy-"right" doesn't apply to individual people anymore only to companies. All the legal first principles are tied to persons, which means copy-"right" negates it self, because if you take it away from persons, all the other legal stuff that's build on top of it evaporates.
If somebody says that they have invented something in their free time, and you accuse them of having stolen "company-time" to do the inventing, they don't have to prove their innocence. I know that's very inconvenient. However innocent until proven guilty is the bedrock of legal justice. If you turn that off all laws disappear.
Technically copy-"right" isn't a right, it's a state granted monopoly, legalese is difficult to decipher but i think that means companies would be contradicting the state in this case. If you can neutralize copy monopolies with a labor agreement, that means there is a loop-hole in there somewhere that can switch off all copy-"right"
On balance I don't see any practicality in this, if you tell somebody
<All your idea are belong to us You create a bunch of disgruntled inventors. And it's not like they can't just tell their brilliant ideas to somebody else who then releases it in to the public domain. You know if i can't have exclusivity, nobody can.
From a Marxist perspective, this is not hiring wage-labor, this economic relation is slavery. Because the difference between a slave and wage worker is that the wage-worker sells it's labor power by the hour and the slave's labor-power is purchased hole-sale. The bourgoisie and the slave aristocracy were enemies, and therefor bourgeois law is designed to negate stuff like this. I think in bourgeois parlance this would boil down to infringing on the right of other capitalists to hire anybody they want to invent something for them. There were non-compete clauses in labor-agreements and those were canned for that reason. You know you can't just call dibs on the labor-power.