4 ms·

Counter-argument: Adverse possession is justified by the scarcity of real property. Which does not apply to IP. - Real property (i.e. land) is a scarce and lim

Counter-argument: Adverse possession is justified by the scarcity of real property. Which does not apply to IP. - Real property (i.e. land) is a scarce and limited resource. If a party is making productive use of the land, they should hold title. (There is only so much arable land. If someone raises crops, let them.) - Intellectual property (particularly copyright) is not a scarce or limited resource. (Create your own copyrightable work if you wish to own the rights.)

mikez0r 8y ago
Of course, adverse possession presumes that land ought to be made "useful." (Haven't thought yet about how these critiques of real property theory map to IP.) Much of real property theory arose from the assumption that the government should recognize and encourage the "highest and best use" of real property. Traditionally, the highest and best use of land is the use that can most profit from the land's resources; often mining, grazing, farming, logging. This is problematic. - This view justifies colonization, and taking land from original inhabitants who don't use the land to extract resource value. - This view does not recognize preservation of an ecosystem as a valuable use. - This view does not account for externalities from use of the land's resources.
- robkop 8y ago
  This is a very interesting argument . I think it's worth noting that you can calculate an estimate of the externalities and remove that from the profit to achieve a more balanced justification. Though unfortunately, unless you counted the loss of culture as an externality then you could still trivially justify the removal of land from those less productive/ technologically advanced than you. Furthermore, even though I'm not personally supportive of the removal of land at the individual's loss I do have to ask if the removal could account for a net gain overall; improving many people's lives. Perhaps profit isn't the best measure of improvement to the collective but it is at least indicative.
TeMPOraL 8y ago
> - Intellectual property (particularly copyright) is not a scarce or limited resource. (Create your own copyrightable work if you wish to own the rights.) It isn't scarce for those seeking rent from it; it absolutely is for those seeking to use the works under copyright. In case of books, music, movies, games, etc., the works are not substitute goods. If I need a particular book for my research, there's a good chance I can't just take a different book instead. So there is acute scarcity involved for a subset of parties interested in a copyrighted work.

mikez0r 8y ago

Of course, adverse possession presumes that land ought to be made "useful." (Haven't thought yet about how these critiques of real property theory map to IP.) Much of real property theory arose from the assumption that the government should recognize and encourage the "highest and best use" of real property. Traditionally, the highest and best use of land is the use that can most profit from the land's resources; often mining, grazing, farming, logging. This is problematic. - This view justifies colonization, and taking land from original inhabitants who don't use the land to extract resource value. - This view does not recognize preservation of an ecosystem as a valuable use. - This view does not account for externalities from use of the land's resources.

robkop 8y ago
This is a very interesting argument . I think it's worth noting that you can calculate an estimate of the externalities and remove that from the profit to achieve a more balanced justification. Though unfortunately, unless you counted the loss of culture as an externality then you could still trivially justify the removal of land from those less productive/ technologically advanced than you. Furthermore, even though I'm not personally supportive of the removal of land at the individual's loss I do have to ask if the removal could account for a net gain overall; improving many people's lives. Perhaps profit isn't the best measure of improvement to the collective but it is at least indicative.

TeMPOraL 8y ago

> - Intellectual property (particularly copyright) is not a scarce or limited resource. (Create your own copyrightable work if you wish to own the rights.) It isn't scarce for those seeking rent from it; it absolutely is for those seeking to use the works under copyright. In case of books, music, movies, games, etc., the works are not substitute goods. If I need a particular book for my research, there's a good chance I can't just take a different book instead. So there is acute scarcity involved for a subset of parties interested in a copyrighted work.