If you wrote a long novel, do you think you should be able to prevent it from being translated if you wanted? Or would you be okay with somebody translating it for you, to a completely different language and culture even if you didn't want them to?
This question is pretty much at the crux of IP philosophy in general.
On one hand, from an strong IP perspective, he created it, and he owns it, and so obviously anything he says goes... he's not 'entitled' for limiting his audience, it's -you- that is 'entitled' for even suggesting he is selfish.
One the other hand, we have the idea that once we create something, it's owned by the public. We should be able to do with it as we will -- sample it [music], parody it, steal bits, make murals of Disney characters at preschools, translate it, even edit it [some religious groups want to edit down movies, for example]. Allow culture to easily build upon itself [The Grey Album, for example, but really, anything that samples], rather than locking anything down.
Historically, IP laws were quite loose. More recently [ever since Mickey almost went public domain, really], IP laws get tighter by the decade as corporations secure their franchises for all time. A big reason for this [besides profit, obviously], is that creations used to be associated with people who eventually died, and now creations are generally associated with corporations which want to profit off said IP forever. They lobby for changes which then trickle down to the individual creator.
Where you fall on the line defines your stance on IP laws in general. Tighter IP laws protect the artist at the cost of the public. Looser IP laws ensure creations enrich the public culturally at the potential cost to the artist.
