3 ms·

> Ownership is a nebulous concept with many interpretations It may have become that, but was it always that way, though? I grew up being pretty clear on the d

> Ownership is a nebulous concept with many interpretations It may have become that, but was it always that way, though? I grew up being pretty clear on the distinction between purchasing a book in a bookshop and borrowing a book from the school or public library.

southerntofu 4y ago
> I grew up being pretty clear on the distinction between purchasing a book in a bookshop and borrowing a book from the school or public library. Very good point that proves "ownership" means different things: private property under capitalism is different from a common/public property such as a book from a library. For most of history, land was not "owned" by anyone. See also "enclosure of the commons" for some reading on the topic. Use-based "ownership" (personal belongings) is not "private property" (a religious belief that prevents people from using a resource that could benefit them such as empty dwellings), and is not "collective property" (shared resource managed by a community), and is not "public domain" (shared abundant resources such as air or water in some regions). All of these approaches can be considered forms of ownership/property, but they vary wildly in principles and applications.
- zajio1am 4y ago
  Even capitalistic authors (e.g. Adam Smith) distinguish land ownership and capital ownership. So the fact that land ownership had special status in history does not say much about 'regular' private property. There is no practical difference between personal property and private property. If i have lathe in my workshop that i use just for hobby purposes, then it is personal property. If i started business, put that lathe in that business and use it for work, then it is private property / capital. But in both cases it is the same lathe that someone has to produce, someone has to pay for it, someone has to maintain it and can be bought and sold on open market.
filleokus 4y ago
If you buy a M8 Bolt or a pair of plain black socks, you are free to do whatever you want with it, sell photos of it, make copies etc. The same can’t exactly be said about the book you purchased (in most legislations where the concept of intellectual property exist). Does that mean that you don’t own the book? Ownership is not so clear cut.
- corobo 4y ago
  You own that copy of the book, you do not own the copyright (the right to copy) for the book
  - milkey_mouse 4y ago
    Intellectual property makes sense to us because it's existed for our whole lives. I think it would surprise someone who'd never heard of it. If I were told I own a pogo stick but not its "bounceright", I'd be as confused as this hypothetical person.
    - corobo 4y ago
      Well yeah, cause that would be kinda silly haha. I think a comparable thing would be if there was a concept of readright for books (I guess there is, piracy exists, but it's more focused on the copying side of things than unauthorised reading) You still get value from reading the book. You get no value from a pogo-free pogo stick

southerntofu 4y ago

> I grew up being pretty clear on the distinction between purchasing a book in a bookshop and borrowing a book from the school or public library. Very good point that proves "ownership" means different things: private property under capitalism is different from a common/public property such as a book from a library. For most of history, land was not "owned" by anyone. See also "enclosure of the commons" for some reading on the topic. Use-based "ownership" (personal belongings) is not "private property" (a religious belief that prevents people from using a resource that could benefit them such as empty dwellings), and is not "collective property" (shared resource managed by a community), and is not "public domain" (shared abundant resources such as air or water in some regions). All of these approaches can be considered forms of ownership/property, but they vary wildly in principles and applications.

zajio1am 4y ago
Even capitalistic authors (e.g. Adam Smith) distinguish land ownership and capital ownership. So the fact that land ownership had special status in history does not say much about 'regular' private property. There is no practical difference between personal property and private property. If i have lathe in my workshop that i use just for hobby purposes, then it is personal property. If i started business, put that lathe in that business and use it for work, then it is private property / capital. But in both cases it is the same lathe that someone has to produce, someone has to pay for it, someone has to maintain it and can be bought and sold on open market.

filleokus 4y ago

If you buy a M8 Bolt or a pair of plain black socks, you are free to do whatever you want with it, sell photos of it, make copies etc. The same can’t exactly be said about the book you purchased (in most legislations where the concept of intellectual property exist). Does that mean that you don’t own the book? Ownership is not so clear cut.

corobo 4y ago
You own that copy of the book, you do not own the copyright (the right to copy) for the book
- milkey_mouse 4y ago
  Intellectual property makes sense to us because it's existed for our whole lives. I think it would surprise someone who'd never heard of it. If I were told I own a pogo stick but not its "bounceright", I'd be as confused as this hypothetical person.
  - corobo 4y ago
    Well yeah, cause that would be kinda silly haha. I think a comparable thing would be if there was a concept of readright for books (I guess there is, piracy exists, but it's more focused on the copying side of things than unauthorised reading) You still get value from reading the book. You get no value from a pogo-free pogo stick