3 ms·
Houses are rivalrous goods. The whole reason IP is treated differently is that it's non-rivalrous. One theatrical company doing a production of Macbeth does not
by lawtalkinghuman 4y ago
Houses are rivalrous goods. The whole reason IP is treated differently is that it's non-rivalrous. One theatrical company doing a production of Macbeth does not stop another. One orchestra performing a Mozart concert does not stop another. There isn't a consistent logic between rivalrous real and personal property and non-rivalrous intellectual property precisely because they're different things.
The right to legally enforcable exclusivity in intellectual property regimes like copyright or patents stems from a balancing exercise between incentivising the work being done (i.e. authors writing books, filmmakers producing films, drug companies researching cool life-saving medical innovations etc.) and ensuring that at some point it reaches the public domain (plus a bit of practicality).
- dleslie 4y ago> One theatrical company doing a production of Macbeth does not stop another. Human leisure, desire and opportunity to consume artistic works is a fair of the population size, and is not unlimited. That's why you don't see a unique and profitable theatre company present on YouTube for every individual of the population.
- CyberDildonics 4y agoYou can say 'rivalrous' as many times as you want, but none of this explains why an IP asset should suddenly be public domain when someone dies. You didn't answer any of the questions about various scenarios like company ownership or lots of people being involved in something's creation. Also there are already time limits for things to be in the public domain and medicine patents expire and become public domain, so I'm not sure what your point is.