4 ms·
I see the reasoning, but the flaw here is already in #2: > Acknowledge that some property is not just a tangible object, but can include a configuration of obj
by rhn_mk1 5y ago
I see the reasoning, but the flaw here is already in #2:
> Acknowledge that some property is not just a tangible object, but can include a configuration of objects.
While there is a configuration that constitutes:
> database records reflecting you bank account as private property.
it's in the owner's interest that those records are as widespread as possible, lest someone challenges the ownership of the property they describe. If they are widespread, they are not exclusive, and therefore are not owned (even if there might be a right to demand the existence and accuracy of the records).
- kelseyfrog 5y agoWe're definitely thinking about things differently. For example, Disney owns Frozen by way of copyright. However there exists many copies of Frozen on blu-ray and those copies are held by many different people. Disney's ownership of the content places limits on what people can do with those copies: not show it to large groups, not make additional copies, etc.
- rhn_mk1 5y agoThe bank doesn't hold a copy of your house, it holds a description of your assets (including contracts like money). And it's absurd to say that if something is your property, then also its descriptions are your property. That doesn't add up even assuming that pure ideas can be property at all.
- kelseyfrog 5y agoThat's why people get worked up about the Eiffel Tower at night.
- rhn_mk1 5y agoThat comes from copyright, though. Copyright is arguably something different than property rights, and is a very recent invention. That's why no one blamed scribes for copying books. You could make a case for private communication extending from copyright, but that's not what the parent claimed.