4 ms·

'intellectual property' is mostly post-modern nonsense. Yet, here we are. If these numbers are property, then, the government will duely regulate it as such.

throwaway98797 5y ago
property rights are man made constructs. intellectual property is a subset of property rights. they both exist only because society deems their existence necessary.
- lukifer 5y ago
  Society reifies and adjudicates the specific rules surrounding "property rights", but they also derive from our cultural norms and biological instincts: everything from "Finders Keepers" to "Your Home Is Your Castle". And predictably, these root nodes of moral claims to property frequently conflict. I strongly recommend Heller & Salzman's "Mine!" [0] as a non-ideological and layperson-accessible exploration of the history and nature of property. [0] https://www.minethebook.com/ https://www.minethebook.com/
- testific8 5y ago
  regulating intellectual "property" will only become increasingly difficult to protect and regulate as the technology for recording, copying, and disseminating information improves. In order to regulate intellectual "property", you need to gimp information technology with DRM. I don't deem the existence of intellectual "property" necessary, in fact I predict its existance will become infeasable to uphold.
  - brighton36 5y ago
    That's about how I feel. I think it's worth noting that humans seem to go through cycles of securitization, that makes 'all the sense in the world' in their time. But, which becomes abhorrent, or nonsensical as the fashions change over time.
- bo1024 5y ago
  I generally agree but it's more accurate to classify "intellectual property" as a completely different concept than "property rights".
omginternets 5y ago
>'intellectual property' is mostly post-modern nonsense. Quite the opposite. You're either confused on the meaning of 'intellectual property' or 'post-modernism'.

throwaway98797 5y ago

property rights are man made constructs. intellectual property is a subset of property rights. they both exist only because society deems their existence necessary.

lukifer 5y ago
Society reifies and adjudicates the specific rules surrounding "property rights", but they also derive from our cultural norms and biological instincts: everything from "Finders Keepers" to "Your Home Is Your Castle". And predictably, these root nodes of moral claims to property frequently conflict. I strongly recommend Heller & Salzman's "Mine!" [0] as a non-ideological and layperson-accessible exploration of the history and nature of property. [0] https://www.minethebook.com/ https://www.minethebook.com/
testific8 5y ago
regulating intellectual "property" will only become increasingly difficult to protect and regulate as the technology for recording, copying, and disseminating information improves. In order to regulate intellectual "property", you need to gimp information technology with DRM. I don't deem the existence of intellectual "property" necessary, in fact I predict its existance will become infeasable to uphold.
- brighton36 5y ago
  That's about how I feel. I think it's worth noting that humans seem to go through cycles of securitization, that makes 'all the sense in the world' in their time. But, which becomes abhorrent, or nonsensical as the fashions change over time.
bo1024 5y ago
I generally agree but it's more accurate to classify "intellectual property" as a completely different concept than "property rights".

omginternets 5y ago

>'intellectual property' is mostly post-modern nonsense. Quite the opposite. You're either confused on the meaning of 'intellectual property' or 'post-modernism'.