6 ms·

If you're willing to connect the dots in this way, where anything that gives you legal authority to control the conduct of others (competitors, critics, custome

If you're willing to connect the dots in this way, where anything that gives you legal authority to control the conduct of others (competitors, critics, customers) in specific ways is "abusive", then you should realize that this sort of argument is very easily extended, because that's exactly what all property does. Intellectual property is the right to say how others are allowed to use an abstract thing that belongs to you. Ordinary property is the right to say how others are allowed to use a physical thing that belongs to you. It's effectively the same concept, just extended. Of course, it doesn't immediately follow from either physical property or intellectual property that it will be abused in the way Doctorow describes (by "keeping customers by making it impossible for them to leave"), but it certainly could be. For example, suppose a relatively small number of individuals or companies owned most of the land, and most of the industrial machinery, and all the investment capital - then everyone else would have to go work for them, and produce whatever the property owners wanted to produce, instead of what they wanted to make for themselves. Someone might describe such a dynamic as fundamentally abusive in exactly the same way that intellectual property is.

stonecraftwolf 6y ago
No. The ability to abuse comes specifically from power imbalances, and that’s what we need to take into account when designing policy. This is something that can’t be explicitly enumerated in all cases, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be addressed. We do have anti-trust law for a reason (even if it hasn’t been enforced).
- zepto 6y ago
  What power imbalances are you thinking of in the case of tech companies?
  - feanaro 6y ago
    A single company owning and having their fingers in everything from search engines, operating systems, phone and laptop hardware, self-driving cars, payment platforms, online shopping platforms, cloud computing platforms and a myriad of other things. I'm of the opinion no single entity should be allowed to be in control of so many things.
    - Guthur 6y ago
      I'm in agreement, that's why small government at all costs :)
      - the_af 6y ago
        Neither the government nor the State function like a company nor do they have the same incentives or goals.
        Guthur 6y ago
        Yes they are worse, they're practically untouchable. The delusion is that we've all convinced ourselves that some 4-5 yearly cycle popular voting system actually gives us any control whatsoever. Big companies manipulate the power we've given over to government or lobby for the extra power to be given to the government for them to exploit. It's so obvious it has to be some sort of group psychosis that means we're all continuely having these same discussions.
        the_af 6y ago
        An alternative explanation for the these discussions is that not everyone agrees with your position, nor thinks that a small(er) government would be helpful for society.
        Guthur 6y ago
        And you all think career politicians like Biden or whoever give two fly fucks for you or me, or are they going to be listening to the billion dollar donors that got them elected. These individuals are so far detached from the people that to call it a "democracy" is a travesty. These are oligarchies with the veneer of popular voting providing a pretense of democracy. Also the irony of asking the government to help you from companies that said government gave defacto monopolies to in the form of copyright laws seems to be completely lost on everyone.
    - RobertKerans 6y ago
breck 6y ago
If you believe that #ImaginaryProperty makes any sense at all I've got some "Dry Water" to sell you.
- fabianhjr 6y ago
  > Dry water, an unusual form of "powdered liquid", is a water–air emulsion in which tiny water droplets, each the size of a grain of sand, are surrounded by a sandy silica coating.[1] Dry water actually consists of 95% liquid water, but the silica coating prevents the water droplets from combining and turning back into a bulk liquid.[2] The result is a white powder that looks very similar to table salt. It is also more commonly known among researchers as empty water. ~ https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Dry_water https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Dry_water
fabianhjr 6y ago
> Of course, it doesn't immediately follow from either physical property or intellectual property that it will be abused in the way Doctorow describes (by "keeping customers by making it impossible for them to leave"), but it certainly could be. For example, suppose a relatively small number of individuals or companies owned most of the land, and most of the industrial machinery, and all the investment capital - then everyone else would have to go work for them, and produce whatever the property owners wanted to produce, instead of what they wanted to make for themselves. Someone might describe such a dynamic as fundamentally abusive in exactly the same way that intellectual property is. I completely agree it can be extended in that way and it has been done so in the past; There are even countries that have political parties that generally agree with such a statement and work towards (albeit imperfectly) to limit or abolish such monopolies of capital. (The US on the other hand left their anti-trust laws to rust on the side and let monopolistic entities gain power such as Amazon and Facebook; here is a report on how Amazon has been using sale and review data to launch AmazonBasics products undercutting other brands: https://www.wsj.com/articles/amazon-competition-shopify-wayfair-allbirds-antitrust-11608235127 https://www.wsj.com/articles/amazon-competition-shopify-wayf... on the "Amazon's Version" section)
pdonis 6y ago
> It's effectively the same concept, just extended. No, it isn't, because ordinary physical property can't be copied the way digital "property" can be. And the whole scheme of property rights with regard to ordinary physical property only makes sense because ordinary physical property can't be copied. If I steal your car, you are deprived of the car; that's why it's a crime for me to do it. But if I make a digital copy of some computer file you have, I'm not depriving you of it; you still have your copy and can still use it exactly as you did before. So why should it be a crime for me to make the copy? The corporations that are pushing "intellectual property" rights over digital "property" would like it to be a crime, of course, but that doesn't mean we, the people, should agree.
- LexGray 6y ago
  So any information... Say human DNA, is free to copy if you shed your hair somewhere?
  - pdonis 6y ago
    In our current legal system, yes, you don't have any property rights over pieces of your DNA that you unavoidably leave all over the place as you go about your life. Do you think we should? If so, how would you go about enforcing such rights?
  - zelphirkalt 6y ago
    A great idea for a science-fiction novel. Just imagine if that happened to become true one day. Some people would have to come up with secrets they exchange, as to make themselves unique to the other person, because there might be clones running around. And all the art and music would either not exist or be somehow supported by society. Society would have to learn, that we need to support what we like, or else the makers of it could not live from it. Would the system of money still work? Would we have different forms for economies unlike capitalism? How would greed work?
- solidsnack9000 6y ago
  It's true that ordinary property can't be copied, but its use can be quite scalable. For example, many people can hunt in a large forest at the same time or fish the same giant lake, and enjoy its outputs in an effectively non-rivalrous way. (This changes if we shift from rod-and-reel fishing to nets and boats, of course.)
matheusmoreira 6y ago
> you should realize that this sort of argument is very easily extended, because that's exactly what all property does That's true only if you accept intellectual property as a legitimate form of property in the first place. It's not. > Intellectual property is the right to say how others are allowed to use an abstract thing that belongs to you. How can a number belong to someone? The whole notion is absurd.

stonecraftwolf 6y ago

No. The ability to abuse comes specifically from power imbalances, and that’s what we need to take into account when designing policy. This is something that can’t be explicitly enumerated in all cases, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be addressed. We do have anti-trust law for a reason (even if it hasn’t been enforced).

zepto 6y ago
What power imbalances are you thinking of in the case of tech companies?
- feanaro 6y ago
  A single company owning and having their fingers in everything from search engines, operating systems, phone and laptop hardware, self-driving cars, payment platforms, online shopping platforms, cloud computing platforms and a myriad of other things. I'm of the opinion no single entity should be allowed to be in control of so many things.
  - Guthur 6y ago
    I'm in agreement, that's why small government at all costs :)
    - the_af 6y ago
      Neither the government nor the State function like a company nor do they have the same incentives or goals.
      - Guthur 6y ago
        Yes they are worse, they're practically untouchable. The delusion is that we've all convinced ourselves that some 4-5 yearly cycle popular voting system actually gives us any control whatsoever. Big companies manipulate the power we've given over to government or lobby for the extra power to be given to the government for them to exploit. It's so obvious it has to be some sort of group psychosis that means we're all continuely having these same discussions.
        the_af 6y ago
        An alternative explanation for the these discussions is that not everyone agrees with your position, nor thinks that a small(er) government would be helpful for society.
        Guthur 6y ago
        And you all think career politicians like Biden or whoever give two fly fucks for you or me, or are they going to be listening to the billion dollar donors that got them elected. These individuals are so far detached from the people that to call it a "democracy" is a travesty. These are oligarchies with the veneer of popular voting providing a pretense of democracy. Also the irony of asking the government to help you from companies that said government gave defacto monopolies to in the form of copyright laws seems to be completely lost on everyone.
  - RobertKerans 6y ago

breck 6y ago

If you believe that #ImaginaryProperty makes any sense at all I've got some "Dry Water" to sell you.

fabianhjr 6y ago
> Dry water, an unusual form of "powdered liquid", is a water–air emulsion in which tiny water droplets, each the size of a grain of sand, are surrounded by a sandy silica coating.[1] Dry water actually consists of 95% liquid water, but the silica coating prevents the water droplets from combining and turning back into a bulk liquid.[2] The result is a white powder that looks very similar to table salt. It is also more commonly known among researchers as empty water. ~ https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Dry_water https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Dry_water

fabianhjr 6y ago

> Of course, it doesn't immediately follow from either physical property or intellectual property that it will be abused in the way Doctorow describes (by "keeping customers by making it impossible for them to leave"), but it certainly could be. For example, suppose a relatively small number of individuals or companies owned most of the land, and most of the industrial machinery, and all the investment capital - then everyone else would have to go work for them, and produce whatever the property owners wanted to produce, instead of what they wanted to make for themselves. Someone might describe such a dynamic as fundamentally abusive in exactly the same way that intellectual property is. I completely agree it can be extended in that way and it has been done so in the past; There are even countries that have political parties that generally agree with such a statement and work towards (albeit imperfectly) to limit or abolish such monopolies of capital. (The US on the other hand left their anti-trust laws to rust on the side and let monopolistic entities gain power such as Amazon and Facebook; here is a report on how Amazon has been using sale and review data to launch AmazonBasics products undercutting other brands: https://www.wsj.com/articles/amazon-competition-shopify-wayfair-allbirds-antitrust-11608235127 https://www.wsj.com/articles/amazon-competition-shopify-wayf... on the "Amazon's Version" section)

pdonis 6y ago

> It's effectively the same concept, just extended. No, it isn't, because ordinary physical property can't be copied the way digital "property" can be. And the whole scheme of property rights with regard to ordinary physical property only makes sense because ordinary physical property can't be copied. If I steal your car, you are deprived of the car; that's why it's a crime for me to do it. But if I make a digital copy of some computer file you have, I'm not depriving you of it; you still have your copy and can still use it exactly as you did before. So why should it be a crime for me to make the copy? The corporations that are pushing "intellectual property" rights over digital "property" would like it to be a crime, of course, but that doesn't mean we, the people, should agree.

LexGray 6y ago
So any information... Say human DNA, is free to copy if you shed your hair somewhere?
- pdonis 6y ago
  In our current legal system, yes, you don't have any property rights over pieces of your DNA that you unavoidably leave all over the place as you go about your life. Do you think we should? If so, how would you go about enforcing such rights?
- zelphirkalt 6y ago
  A great idea for a science-fiction novel. Just imagine if that happened to become true one day. Some people would have to come up with secrets they exchange, as to make themselves unique to the other person, because there might be clones running around. And all the art and music would either not exist or be somehow supported by society. Society would have to learn, that we need to support what we like, or else the makers of it could not live from it. Would the system of money still work? Would we have different forms for economies unlike capitalism? How would greed work?
solidsnack9000 6y ago
It's true that ordinary property can't be copied, but its use can be quite scalable. For example, many people can hunt in a large forest at the same time or fish the same giant lake, and enjoy its outputs in an effectively non-rivalrous way. (This changes if we shift from rod-and-reel fishing to nets and boats, of course.)

matheusmoreira 6y ago

> you should realize that this sort of argument is very easily extended, because that's exactly what all property does That's true only if you accept intellectual property as a legitimate form of property in the first place. It's not. > Intellectual property is the right to say how others are allowed to use an abstract thing that belongs to you. How can a number belong to someone? The whole notion is absurd.