carmackfan

You don't need to precisely know about the future to know that inheritance isn't for sharing behavior. Unfortunate it's not really taught properly.

Your problem was a misuse of inheritance, not encapsulation or interfaces.

Many social/legal constructs are for lack of a better term, idiotic. Step back for a second and think about what ownership actually implies? Exclusive control over a scarce resource. If a resource isn't scarce, where your control over it doesn't impede or restrict other peoples control over it, there is no feasible model that explains why one person has control or ownership of it over another.

Social/legal constructs like owning ideas or the sound of a voice exist not because they make any sort of logical sense, they exist to give privilege and power to certain groups at the expense of others.

Appeal to law fallacy.

You're missing the point. Ownership implies the resource is scarce. If the resource is a pattern, which cannot be physically owned and my usage of the pattern doesn't prevent others from using the pattern, it's nonsensical to say it can be owned by anybody.

> You can own your likeness.

How?

That wasn't my point. We can own physical items, land etc. Because it's a scarce resource. If me "owning" something doesn't prevent you from also "owning" it, the concept of ownership of that item is absurd.

This whole argument rests on the absurd assumption that you can "own" a voice as if it's property. Does this mean people can own the patterns of vibration in air? It's completely nonsensical.