Nope, there is no such moral right. It’s an artificial right we created (actually mostly taking away the natural right for people to free copy whatever). And then through corruption, ended up expanding to absurdity and locking it in via treaties and all the propaganda that the vast majority of people swallow whole and take it for granted like fish take water for granted.
> the natural right for people to free copy whatever
Practical as it may be, that's not a natural right but merely a physical possibility. More generally, the concept of natural rights - except for a very narrow niche of special subjects closely centered on the individual's own life and bodily autonomy - is a shortcut to total subjectivity at best. And even for that very narrow niche, the "rights" part is a normative civilizational convention/construct, whereas nature conspicuously ignores such "rights" (as do humans for the most part when it comes to other species)
> That’s a fast track to undermining any moral right whatsoever
What is? If you mean the absurd idea of wanting to base those on the murky and subjective notion of "natural" rights, then I fully agree. If on the other hand you mean the reminder that such subjective notions of "natural" rights are a shitty wobbly base for any moral rights (or most other rights as well for that matter) legislation, then no, not at all, quite to the contrary:
The fact of being aware of what rights are (a civilizational norm that grants the individual the protection of their possibilities, as opposed to some inherently subjective notion that a physical possibility would somehow be more special than another because of a subjective view of "god" or "nature") is actually positive for individual autonomy… and a crucial part of enlightenment as far as the legal parts of civilization goes.
In contrast, arguing for concepts based on what they believe to be "natural" is what reactionary forces do in order to restrict individual freedoms. Not so long ago, we had lots of discriminations based on that, e.g. on the idea that black people were "naturally" below white people, that women were "naturally" to obey some role models or that being gay way an abomination against "nature". Arguments based on ideas of "natural rights" have - outside of very narrow special subgect niches directly related to the individual's life and bodily autonomy - always been a major factor against individual freedoms.
Of course that doesn't change the fact that legal systems can also come up with factors restricting individual freedoms based on totally unrelated factors.
> It restricts what you can say or write
so do laws against slander and laws against unconsented divulgation of personal data. Now don't get me wrong, I agree that the domain of copyright does need some reform. But it's clearly not as simple as just to remove everything that somehow restricts (be it copying and sharing of data or other possibilities).
Otherwise any privacy laws and laws for data sovereignty and against unconsented divulgation of personal data would fall as well. They too are based on the legal concept that everyone has an ownership of their data. And more generally, laws about rights are almost always the result of a complex balance to find between the rights and possibilities of many sides.
