5 ms·
Intellectual property at least makes a certain sense, since it is something you create yourself out of thin air, and therefore can decide to make available to o
by olavk 15y ago
Intellectual property at least makes a certain sense, since it is something you create yourself out of thin air, and therefore can decide to make available to others under certain conditions if both parties agree. If you don't make it available, nobody suffers, and if you do, you have created value without depriving others, so it is only fair to receive compensation.
Owning land, on the other hand is clearly immoral. You didn't create the land, so how could you own it? Oh, you bought it from someone else. Well they didn't own it either. Someone stole it from the community a long time ago. Owning land is theft exactly because it is a limited resource.
- grandpa 15y ago> Owning land is theft exactly because it is a limited resource. Would you say the same is true of gold?
- FrojoS 15y agoyou have created value without depriving others, so it is only fair to receive compensation. How is this fair to everyone else who had the same idea but wasn't as fast or greedy?
- olavk 15y agoGood point - that is why I don't support IP rights for ideas so simple that other people would come up with them independently. This includes many software patents. I do believe in IP rights for creations above a certain level of complexity. For example, no two people would come op with the same novel or symphony independently.
- FrojoS 15y agoI do believe in IP rights for creations above a certain level of complexity. For example, no two people would come op with the same novel or symphony independently. Interesting thought. Though, where do you draw the line? I don't want to oversimplify things. But a lack of IP obviously didn't demotivate Mr. Beethoven from writing lots of symphonies.
- conanite 15y agoGranting exclusive access to exploit a resource avoids the tragedy of the commons - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons The argument for ownership of land is solid and clear; the argument for intellectual property, less so.
- icebraining 15y ago>Intellectual property at least makes a certain sense, since it is something you create yourself out of thin air That's obviously not true; all works are based on every work the artists has experienced in his life. All art stands on itself, not as isolated works. If you mean the support in which it is impressed, then it's not true either - the materials are finite just like land.