3 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoSo any information... Say human DNA, is free to copy if you shed your hair somewhere?
- pdonis 6y agoIn 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 agoA 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 agoIt'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.)
- pdonis 6y ago> It's true that ordinary property can't be copied, but its use can be quite scalable. What you're describing is not "scalable" use. It's just an example of physical property whose "use" amounts to some number N of people doing something using it, where N is much larger than 1. But N is still based on, and limited by, the physical nature of the property; it can't be increased arbitrarily by just making more copies, the way it can for digital "property".
- solidsnack9000 6y agoYou are more or less saying what I said in different words.
- bawolff 6y agoWell i agree generally, the parent did not make reference to the scarcity of physical property. I agree with him/her that the enforcement aspect is just an extension of the enforcement rights of regular property. Where i disagree is that intellectual ideas should be owned like physical things in the first place, with the difference being scarcity as you say. Maybe im being pedantic but i feel like its an important distinction to make.
- dnautics 6y agoJust fyi- I think you mean rivalrousness, not scarcity, they're not exactly the same, and edge cases where they are similar but one is mistreated as the other have historically had serious consequences.