4 ms·

That sounds like a rationalization of "But I want it!" If someone owns useful land, but prefers to leave it fallow, they don't lose ownership of it; why should

That sounds like a rationalization of "But I want it!" If someone owns useful land, but prefers to leave it fallow, they don't lose ownership of it; why shouldn't they have the right to leave their intellectual property idle? Part of ownership is the right to use your property as you please.

fnord123 9y ago
It's more like renting out apartments and then tearing down the building while people are still living in it. There are laws against that.
- JasonFruit 9y ago
  There's a big difference between people's residences and a video game.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
waqf 9y ago
You begged the question here. The question is whether and to what extent the creator of software should have "ownership".
- rm_-rf_slash 9y ago
  Precisely. That's the difference between land and IP. IP is made. Land is bought, maybe worked on, developed, but as Mark Twain said about land, "they're not making it anymore." >Inb4 South China Sea.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
lstyls 9y ago
Putting aside the peril of comparing intellectual property to physical property, this is not true, even in the United States where property rights are quite strong. For instance, there are squatters rights laws on the books in many states.
rm_-rf_slash 9y ago
IP and land are apples and Shakespearean sonnets. There's really no comparison. There's only so much space on the island of Manhattan. It can't fit everybody on the planet. Digital property is reproducible at zero cost. We could have a copy of Battlefield 2 for every man, woman, cat, and dog on this planet, at effectively the same cost that it takes to create the first copy.
- cr0sh 9y ago
  > It can't fit everybody on the planet. Actually, in theory it could - it wouldn't be very comfortable, nor easy, and forget fire codes, but... Manhattan is approximately 22.82 square miles in area; or approximately 59103529 square meters. If we say "standing room only" and allocate 2 square meters per person, we could cram approximately 29551765 people on the island (assuming we level everything else, of course). There are 7.6 billion people on the planet Earth, so: 7600000000 / 29551765 = 257 layers If we say "let's build a building to house them all - and let's give 10 feet of room between levels" - then we get a (very ugly) "building" 2570 feet tall. The Burj Khalifa is 2722 feet tall.
  - 24gttghh 9y ago
    Good luck getting enough AC units in that structure to keep everyone from dying of heat stroke within a few minutes.
    - logfromblammo 9y ago
      Give everyone 8 feet between floors, with one mechanical floor for every 10 occupied floors, that is 24 feet high, and make the lobby level 16 feet. And round up to 260 occupied floors to account for babies born in the building. So that's 260 * 8 + 26 * 24 + 16 = 2720 feet. But at ~50W thermal output per person, that's 380 GW of heat that has to be removed from the building. The perimeter of Manhattan is about 32 miles, or 168960 feet, so that's about 1 billion sq.ft. of surface area, about 1/3 outer wall and 2/3 roof. The building would need to reject 380W of waste heat from every single square foot. You would need AC capable of moving 1.3 trillion BTU/hr, or 108 million "tons". I think regular air conditioners might not cut it. You'd probably have to use all collected urine to transport waste heat to a gigantic radiator out in the ocean.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
24gttghh 9y ago
I wouldn't be too sure about that. There are some jurisdictions where if someone squats the land long enough, and the owner of the land does nothing, the squatters gain de jure property rights too. [0] 3 years in this instance were the alternate Battlefield servers being run outside of EA, which might be considered a reasonable space of time without the publisher taking action to the point where the alternative servers might be considered the inheritors of the intellectual property? It's a bit of a stretch, but perhaps there is some validity here. I don't feel too strongly about it, so I hope you don't feel like I am trying to shut you down. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession
crest 9y ago
Because there is no scarcity that requires management by enforcing an monopoly. If I want to stop playing chess why should everyone else stop playing chess as well?
katastic 9y ago
> If someone owns useful land, but prefers to leave it fallow Which makes your argument absolutely hilarious, because there's actually a provision for houses that aren't used that allows squaters to take over and own it legally. It's called "Adverse Possession." So yeah, people who abandon (the use of) property... don't actually have the right to hold onto it forever. It's almost like the law favors society over complete assholes.

fnord123 9y ago

It's more like renting out apartments and then tearing down the building while people are still living in it. There are laws against that.

JasonFruit 9y ago
There's a big difference between people's residences and a video game.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

waqf 9y ago

You begged the question here. The question is whether and to what extent the creator of software should have "ownership".

rm_-rf_slash 9y ago
Precisely. That's the difference between land and IP. IP is made. Land is bought, maybe worked on, developed, but as Mark Twain said about land, "they're not making it anymore." >Inb4 South China Sea.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

lstyls 9y ago

Putting aside the peril of comparing intellectual property to physical property, this is not true, even in the United States where property rights are quite strong. For instance, there are squatters rights laws on the books in many states.

rm_-rf_slash 9y ago

IP and land are apples and Shakespearean sonnets. There's really no comparison. There's only so much space on the island of Manhattan. It can't fit everybody on the planet. Digital property is reproducible at zero cost. We could have a copy of Battlefield 2 for every man, woman, cat, and dog on this planet, at effectively the same cost that it takes to create the first copy.

cr0sh 9y ago
> It can't fit everybody on the planet. Actually, in theory it could - it wouldn't be very comfortable, nor easy, and forget fire codes, but... Manhattan is approximately 22.82 square miles in area; or approximately 59103529 square meters. If we say "standing room only" and allocate 2 square meters per person, we could cram approximately 29551765 people on the island (assuming we level everything else, of course). There are 7.6 billion people on the planet Earth, so: 7600000000 / 29551765 = 257 layers If we say "let's build a building to house them all - and let's give 10 feet of room between levels" - then we get a (very ugly) "building" 2570 feet tall. The Burj Khalifa is 2722 feet tall.
- 24gttghh 9y ago
  Good luck getting enough AC units in that structure to keep everyone from dying of heat stroke within a few minutes.
  - logfromblammo 9y ago
    Give everyone 8 feet between floors, with one mechanical floor for every 10 occupied floors, that is 24 feet high, and make the lobby level 16 feet. And round up to 260 occupied floors to account for babies born in the building. So that's 260 * 8 + 26 * 24 + 16 = 2720 feet. But at ~50W thermal output per person, that's 380 GW of heat that has to be removed from the building. The perimeter of Manhattan is about 32 miles, or 168960 feet, so that's about 1 billion sq.ft. of surface area, about 1/3 outer wall and 2/3 roof. The building would need to reject 380W of waste heat from every single square foot. You would need AC capable of moving 1.3 trillion BTU/hr, or 108 million "tons". I think regular air conditioners might not cut it. You'd probably have to use all collected urine to transport waste heat to a gigantic radiator out in the ocean.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

24gttghh 9y ago

I wouldn't be too sure about that. There are some jurisdictions where if someone squats the land long enough, and the owner of the land does nothing, the squatters gain de jure property rights too. [0] 3 years in this instance were the alternate Battlefield servers being run outside of EA, which might be considered a reasonable space of time without the publisher taking action to the point where the alternative servers might be considered the inheritors of the intellectual property? It's a bit of a stretch, but perhaps there is some validity here. I don't feel too strongly about it, so I hope you don't feel like I am trying to shut you down. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession

crest 9y ago

Because there is no scarcity that requires management by enforcing an monopoly. If I want to stop playing chess why should everyone else stop playing chess as well?

katastic 9y ago

> If someone owns useful land, but prefers to leave it fallow Which makes your argument absolutely hilarious, because there's actually a provision for houses that aren't used that allows squaters to take over and own it legally. It's called "Adverse Possession." So yeah, people who abandon (the use of) property... don't actually have the right to hold onto it forever. It's almost like the law favors society over complete assholes.