4 ms·

You can't really fit IP into the same framework as physical property rights. Whether we think IP is valid, it should be treated as distinct. Be it through the t

by iwwr 16y ago

You can't really fit IP into the same framework as physical property rights. Whether we think IP is valid, it should be treated as distinct. Be it through the theory of 'social value' (IP in general) or 'social incentives' (patents) or the needs of business identification (trademarks). A physical property right refers to a physical good, whereas an intellectual property right refers more to behaviors (making a nondestructive copy) and to classes of goods (eg. storage media). It's also relatively easy to define a physical good or a physical boundary of land, but 'original creations' are much less precise. Indeed, nothing is really created in isolation and oftentimes, the same invention is developed independently (and near at the same time) by multiple entities. We should rather call IP an intellectual monopoly privilege, than a right to a piece of property.

VladRussian 16y ago
>as physical property rights ... >We should rather call IP an intellectual monopoly privilege, than a right to a piece of property. I hope you don't overestimate what physical property rights are, in particular that typical "fee simple" title is basically the license ("monopoly privilege"?) to a real estate vs. allodial title which is almost impossible, at least in the US nowdays.
- iwwr 16y ago
  Thanks for the reference, btw: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allodial_title http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allodial_title I didn't know that particular term. But I would distinguish rights from their actual recognition. Rights can exist without them having to be recognized. They can't be taken away, just infringed against. If someone has been wrongly imprisoned, his rights still exist, even if they are being broken systematically. Also, the difference between IP as a 'right' and as a 'privilege' consists in the difficulty of arranging for a system of IPs in a world without a monopolistic enforcer (or 'privilege granter'). It could be just that IP is a new phenomenon and our social systems are not yet prepared to deal with it. It could also be that IP is falsely recognized and their enforcement further breaks existing rights.
  - VladRussian 16y ago
    >Rights can exist without them having to be recognized. >They can't be taken away, just infringed against. Property rights - it is government license to you for the exclusive (subject to zoning and other laws/rules) use for a specific parcel of land. That infringes upon all Earth's creatures' (humans including) rights for that specific parcel of land. The same way IP rights - government grants you the license for the exclusive (subject to various laws/rules) use for an idea, sound, symbol... That infringes upon all Earth's creatures' (humans including) right for that idea, sound, symbol... It is like in logic/mathematics - the same basic rules create the same structure. The nature of individual objects doesn't matter. The IP space is undergoing the same parcelization, zoning, fencing, etc... (RIAA as a crazy city council) Actually, so far we've seen only beginning of this process ... >Also, the difference between IP as a 'right' and as a 'privilege' consists in the difficulty of arranging for a system of IPs in a world without a monopolistic enforcer (or 'privilege granter'). This is what World Wars are for - solving such problems in the specific areas of rights, specifically real property rights, human rights, etc...
sabat 16y ago
We should rather call IP an intellectual monopoly privilege, than a right to a piece of property. I could not have said it better. It's not property, and no allowance for treating the intangible as property exists in the US constitution. It grants a monopoly for a limited time in order to encourage artists and inventors. Obviously that's been perverted into what's now called IP -- fake "property" that is "owned" by corporations rather than artists and inventors.
- kahirsch 16y ago
  Treating the intangible as property was long established in common law, not just with regard to patents and copyright, but many other things. Blackstone lists, for example, ten kinds of "incorporeal hereditaments": http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/b/blackstone/william/comment/book2.3.html http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/b/blackstone/william/comment/b... The clause in the Constitution about granting exclusive rights was not creating something brand new, but just assigning the power to do it to the federal government instead of the states.
  - stcredzero 16y ago
    In the state of Texas, software is considered a "tangible good" for the purpose of taxation.
  - sabat 16y ago
    Treating the intangible as property was long established in common law Allowing copyright and patent monopoly was allowed, yes. That's not the same thing as "property," which is the point I'm making here. clause in the Constitution about granting exclusive rights was not creating something brand new, but just assigning the power to do it to the federal government It was not new, agreed. It went beyond just naming who had the power to do it, however. The Bill of Rights laid ground rules for laws Congress could make. There was a lot of debate about the Copyright Clause in particular -- Thomas Jefferson in particular had a lot to say about it, including serious concerns about attempts to treat the knowledge in someone's head as "property". (Yes, he actually addressed that particular issue.)
j_baker 16y ago
To me, the entire idea of IP is trying to artificially shoehorn the idea of property ownership onto ideas. Physical property is a zero-sum game. For me to make $20, someone has to lose $20. Intellectual property without patents isn't. If I can make something, then other people can as well. But when you have a patent, it turns into a zero-sum game just like physical property.
- tomjen3 16y ago
  Physical property is only a zero sum game if you steal the money. To make twenty dollars you have to create and sell something that is worth more than twenty dollars to the buyer. This is possible because not everyone values things the same. If you have a bread factory you have enough bread that you will value it less than me, who would otherwise go hungry. So yes, you lose a bread and I gain one, but you value the price higher and i value the bread. Who lose?
  - praptak 16y ago
    I believe you are a little overextending GP's statement. Physical property is a zero sum game only in the context of mass and energy preservation. The price tag on a pound of flour and yeast may vary, you may transform it into bread, but you cannot both keep it and sell it.
- tomjen3 16y ago
  Physical property is only a zero sum game if you steal the money. To make twenty dollars you have to create and sell something that is worth more than twenty dollars to the buyer. This is possible because not everyone values things the same. If you have a bread factory you have enough bread that you will value it less than me, who would otherwise go hungry. So yes, you lose a bread and I gain one, but you value the price higher and i value the bread. Who lose?
wybo 16y ago
> We should rather call IP an intellectual monopoly privilege, than a right to a piece of property. Agree. And the pernicious thing with this is that, while of course publishers and creators should be renumerated, doing this through scarcity, which is a natural condition in the physical world, does not make sense, as it is not a given in the virtual world, and scarcity should be avoided where possible, right? Markets basically are good because of three things: 1) enabling efficient investments, 2) decentralized decisions, 3) and efficient use. But in the virtual realm, while the first two of these are the same under scarcity, the 3rd is not, as without natural scarcity, efficient use is 3) as much use as possible. Therefore a market-like popularity algorithm (no council of old men deciding what receives money, but popularity / appreciation / number of downloads) + a levy system, or something similar, would make the on-line market work much more in the spirit of the first, physical goods market, rather than according to the letter of that market. And as the importance of virtual goods grows, it becomes more sensible to create a second market for it, so we have two free markets, instead of one. For those interested, I wrote more about this in my (history) thesis: http://www.logilogi.org/pub/Enclosures/paper.pdf http://www.logilogi.org/pub/Enclosures/paper.pdf
tzs 16y ago
It can be shown by mathematical economists that a free market leads to optimal use of resources, under the assumption that goods in the market have certain attributes. Intellectual goods lack those attributes, and so a free market does not work for them (in the economic sense). Our IP laws basically give intellectual goods those attributes that allow a free market to work with them. Essentially the law makes intellectual goods behave like physical goods so that the market can deal with them. Given that, I see nothing wrong with applying the term "property" to intellectual goods.
- stcredzero 16y ago
  I see this as a problem. The free market in IP only works when we pretend reality is other than it is? No wonder things don't work!

by iwwr 16y ago

VladRussian 16y ago

>as physical property rights ... >We should rather call IP an intellectual monopoly privilege, than a right to a piece of property. I hope you don't overestimate what physical property rights are, in particular that typical "fee simple" title is basically the license ("monopoly privilege"?) to a real estate vs. allodial title which is almost impossible, at least in the US nowdays.

iwwr 16y ago
Thanks for the reference, btw: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allodial_title http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allodial_title I didn't know that particular term. But I would distinguish rights from their actual recognition. Rights can exist without them having to be recognized. They can't be taken away, just infringed against. If someone has been wrongly imprisoned, his rights still exist, even if they are being broken systematically. Also, the difference between IP as a 'right' and as a 'privilege' consists in the difficulty of arranging for a system of IPs in a world without a monopolistic enforcer (or 'privilege granter'). It could be just that IP is a new phenomenon and our social systems are not yet prepared to deal with it. It could also be that IP is falsely recognized and their enforcement further breaks existing rights.
- VladRussian 16y ago
  >Rights can exist without them having to be recognized. >They can't be taken away, just infringed against. Property rights - it is government license to you for the exclusive (subject to zoning and other laws/rules) use for a specific parcel of land. That infringes upon all Earth's creatures' (humans including) rights for that specific parcel of land. The same way IP rights - government grants you the license for the exclusive (subject to various laws/rules) use for an idea, sound, symbol... That infringes upon all Earth's creatures' (humans including) right for that idea, sound, symbol... It is like in logic/mathematics - the same basic rules create the same structure. The nature of individual objects doesn't matter. The IP space is undergoing the same parcelization, zoning, fencing, etc... (RIAA as a crazy city council) Actually, so far we've seen only beginning of this process ... >Also, the difference between IP as a 'right' and as a 'privilege' consists in the difficulty of arranging for a system of IPs in a world without a monopolistic enforcer (or 'privilege granter'). This is what World Wars are for - solving such problems in the specific areas of rights, specifically real property rights, human rights, etc...

sabat 16y ago

We should rather call IP an intellectual monopoly privilege, than a right to a piece of property. I could not have said it better. It's not property, and no allowance for treating the intangible as property exists in the US constitution. It grants a monopoly for a limited time in order to encourage artists and inventors. Obviously that's been perverted into what's now called IP -- fake "property" that is "owned" by corporations rather than artists and inventors.

kahirsch 16y ago
Treating the intangible as property was long established in common law, not just with regard to patents and copyright, but many other things. Blackstone lists, for example, ten kinds of "incorporeal hereditaments": http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/b/blackstone/william/comment/book2.3.html http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/b/blackstone/william/comment/b... The clause in the Constitution about granting exclusive rights was not creating something brand new, but just assigning the power to do it to the federal government instead of the states.
- stcredzero 16y ago
  In the state of Texas, software is considered a "tangible good" for the purpose of taxation.
- sabat 16y ago
  Treating the intangible as property was long established in common law Allowing copyright and patent monopoly was allowed, yes. That's not the same thing as "property," which is the point I'm making here. clause in the Constitution about granting exclusive rights was not creating something brand new, but just assigning the power to do it to the federal government It was not new, agreed. It went beyond just naming who had the power to do it, however. The Bill of Rights laid ground rules for laws Congress could make. There was a lot of debate about the Copyright Clause in particular -- Thomas Jefferson in particular had a lot to say about it, including serious concerns about attempts to treat the knowledge in someone's head as "property". (Yes, he actually addressed that particular issue.)

j_baker 16y ago

To me, the entire idea of IP is trying to artificially shoehorn the idea of property ownership onto ideas. Physical property is a zero-sum game. For me to make $20, someone has to lose $20. Intellectual property without patents isn't. If I can make something, then other people can as well. But when you have a patent, it turns into a zero-sum game just like physical property.

tomjen3 16y ago
Physical property is only a zero sum game if you steal the money. To make twenty dollars you have to create and sell something that is worth more than twenty dollars to the buyer. This is possible because not everyone values things the same. If you have a bread factory you have enough bread that you will value it less than me, who would otherwise go hungry. So yes, you lose a bread and I gain one, but you value the price higher and i value the bread. Who lose?
- praptak 16y ago
  I believe you are a little overextending GP's statement. Physical property is a zero sum game only in the context of mass and energy preservation. The price tag on a pound of flour and yeast may vary, you may transform it into bread, but you cannot both keep it and sell it.
tomjen3 16y ago
Physical property is only a zero sum game if you steal the money. To make twenty dollars you have to create and sell something that is worth more than twenty dollars to the buyer. This is possible because not everyone values things the same. If you have a bread factory you have enough bread that you will value it less than me, who would otherwise go hungry. So yes, you lose a bread and I gain one, but you value the price higher and i value the bread. Who lose?

wybo 16y ago

> We should rather call IP an intellectual monopoly privilege, than a right to a piece of property. Agree. And the pernicious thing with this is that, while of course publishers and creators should be renumerated, doing this through scarcity, which is a natural condition in the physical world, does not make sense, as it is not a given in the virtual world, and scarcity should be avoided where possible, right? Markets basically are good because of three things: 1) enabling efficient investments, 2) decentralized decisions, 3) and efficient use. But in the virtual realm, while the first two of these are the same under scarcity, the 3rd is not, as without natural scarcity, efficient use is 3) as much use as possible. Therefore a market-like popularity algorithm (no council of old men deciding what receives money, but popularity / appreciation / number of downloads) + a levy system, or something similar, would make the on-line market work much more in the spirit of the first, physical goods market, rather than according to the letter of that market. And as the importance of virtual goods grows, it becomes more sensible to create a second market for it, so we have two free markets, instead of one. For those interested, I wrote more about this in my (history) thesis: http://www.logilogi.org/pub/Enclosures/paper.pdf http://www.logilogi.org/pub/Enclosures/paper.pdf

tzs 16y ago

It can be shown by mathematical economists that a free market leads to optimal use of resources, under the assumption that goods in the market have certain attributes. Intellectual goods lack those attributes, and so a free market does not work for them (in the economic sense). Our IP laws basically give intellectual goods those attributes that allow a free market to work with them. Essentially the law makes intellectual goods behave like physical goods so that the market can deal with them. Given that, I see nothing wrong with applying the term "property" to intellectual goods.

stcredzero 16y ago
I see this as a problem. The free market in IP only works when we pretend reality is other than it is? No wonder things don't work!